An empanelled candidate does not acquire the right to challenge the rejection of the panel until the panel is approved and the candidate receives the Appointment.

JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.

Facts:

1. This is the third round of writ litigation by the writ petitioner.

2. The petitioner was an aspirant for the post of Group-D, at Kharamba Bani Vidyalaya, District-24 Parganas (South) [for short the school].

3. The Managing Committee of the school initially proposed to hold the selection process on the basis of the Panel of Candidates received from the jurisdictional Employment Exchange.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved filed the first writ petition being WPA No. 21126 (W) of 2008. A coordinate Bench by its order dated August 26, 2008, Annexure-P2 at page 30 to the writ petition disposed of the said writ petition with a direction upon the school authorities not to hold the recruitment test from amongst the candidates only sponsored by the concerned Employment Exchange and liberty was granted to hold such recruitment after giving wide publication regarding the vacancy in question through different media. It was further observed that, if the publication is made and if the petitioner applies for the post having requisite qualification then, he will also be allowed to appear for the test.

5. Pursuant to and in terms of the said direction of the coordinate Bench, the wide publication inviting candidatures was published by the managing committee of the school on September 9, 2008, Annexure-P4 at page 33 to the writ petition.

6. Pursuant to and in terms of the said wide publication, the petitioner applied thereunder and participated in the recruitment process and ultimately the petitioner secured the first position for the Group-D employment, Annexure-P8 at page 40 to the writ petition.

7. The panel was sent by the school authority before the jurisdictional District Inspector of Schools (for short the D.I.) who sat idle on the panel.

8. The petitioner filed the second round of writ litigation being WPA No. 16413 (W) of 2010. A coordinate Bench by its order dated August 6, 2010, Annexure-P9 at page 43 to the writ petition, disposed of the writ petition with a direction upon the D.I. to convey its decision on the panel, in accordance with law, to the managing committee of the school as well as the petitioner within a specific time-frame.

9. Pursuant to and in terms of the said direction of the coordinate Bench, the D.I. passed its reasoned order dated January 31, 2011 rejecting the panel, Annexure-P10 at page 47 to the writ petition.

10. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.

11. Another writ petition assailing the said impugned decision of the D.I. being WPA No. 5800 of 2011 was filed by the managing committee of the school.

12. Both these writ petitions were considered analogously for some time. Ultimately, the managing committee of the school did not pursue its writ petition and their writ petition being WPA No. 5800 of 2011 stood dismissed for default by this Court on January 10, 2024.

13. At this juncture, this Court has raised an issue with regard to the locus of the writ petitioner to maintain the instant writ petition.

Submissions:

14. Ms. Shetparna Ray, learned counsel led by Mr. B.N. Ray, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, the moment the petitioner appeared in the recruitment process and was selected for the post by the managing committee of the school, a valuable right has accrued in favour of the petitioner to be considered for the employment.

15. Referring to the first order of the coordinate Bench dated August 26, 2008 she submits that, the right of the petitioner was recognised by the coordinate Bench and then only the coordinate Bench directed the petitioner to participate in the selection process, if otherwise qualified in terms of the wide publication to be caused.

16. She then refers to the second order of the coordinate Bench dated August 6, 2010 and submits that, after being satisfied with the locus and right of the petitioner, the coordinate Bench directed the D.I. to communicate the fate of the panel to the managing committee of the