Approval from the District Inspector of Schools for the master degree qualification is not relevant for being awarded marks for such degree for preparation of panel. A challenge to the selection process at the instance of an unsuccessful candidate cannot be entertained in the light of the principle of waiver and acquiescence.

JUDGMENT :

HIRANMAY BHTTACHARYYA, J.

1. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to set aside the order of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.) (for short DI), Alipurduar dated July 27, 2023. By the said order, DI approved the panel of Assistant Head Master forwarded by the school authority.

2. Prior permission for recruitment to the post of Assistant Headmaster in favour of Shilbarihat High School (H.S.), Alipurduar was granted by the DI vide Memo dated September 28, 2021. Thereafter the concerned school authority invited members of the regular approved teaching staff of the school having requisite qualification to apply for the post of Assistant Headmaster of the said school.

3. Pursuant to such invitation the petitioner and the private respondent, who were at the relevant point of time Assistant Teacher of the said school applied for the post of Assistant Headmaster.

4. Alleging inaction on the part of the concerned DI in not disclosing the result of the selection process, the private respondent filed a writ petition being WPA 706 of 2023 which was disposed of by an order dated May 12, 2023 by directing the DI to pass a reasoned order upon considering the records and giving an opportunity of hearing to the private respondent herein with regard to the subject selection process for appointment of Headmaster of the said school.

5. Pursuant to the said order dated May 12, 2023 the DI passed the order dated July 27th, 2023 which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

6. Mr. Bose, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that no opportunity was given to the petitioner herein by the concerned DI while deciding the issue as to the approval of the panel of the Assistant Headmaster. He submits that the petitioner is having the requisite academic qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Headmaster and the private respondent herein did not possess the requisite qualification for being appointed as an Assistant Headmaster.

7. Mr. Bose further submits that the selection process was initiated in terms of Memo No.1628-GA/OM-18/2001 dated July 10, 2002 and the private respondent being a pass graduate could not have been awarded 35 out of 40 marks. He, therefore, submits that the respondent authorities acted in an illegal and arbitrary manner in the matter of preparation and approval of the panel.

8. Mr. Bose submits that the master degree qualification of the private respondent was not approved as she was enjoying the scale of pay fixed for pass graduate teacher and, therefore, the private respondent was not eligible to participate in the selection process.

9. Mr. Bose has challenged the authority of the Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal by contending that the Memo dated July 10, 2002 could not have been modified by the Commissioner of School Education by issuing the Memo dated February 26, 2015 as such authority do not have any power of review. He, therefore, submits that the Memo dated February 26, 2015 is liable to be set aside and quashed.

10. Mr. Bari, learned Advocate representing the School Authority submits that the petitioner participated in the selection process and after he was declared unsuccessful in the selection process has challenged the selection process. By placing reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhananjay Malik and ors. vs. State of Uttaranchal and ors reported at (2008)4 SCC 171 and Tajvir Singh Sodhi & ors. vs. The State of Jammu and Kashmir & ors. reported at 2023 Live Law (SC) 253 he submits that it is well settled that a challenge thrown by a candidate after be had been declared unsuccessful in the selection process ought not to be entertained in the light of the principle of waiver and acquiescence. He further submits that the private respondent herein is also possessing the master degree qualification as would be evident from the approval of appointment given by the District Inspector of S