IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of advertisement for a post and the eligibility of a non-sponsored candidate from the Employment Exchange to appear at an interview. The court emphasized the importance of verifying the eligibility of the candidate before allowing them to participate in the selection process.

JUDGMENT :

Biswaroop Chowdhury, J:

1. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 10-01-2014 passed in WP No. 14353 (W) of 2010 with WP 11494 (W) of 2007. The appellant before us was not a party in the writ petition the Order of which is assailed but was a candidate in a recruitment interview in which the respondent no.1/writ petitioner appeared pursuant to the Order passed in Writ Petition 11494 (W) of 2007.

2. The case of the Writ Petitioner/respondent no-1 may be summed up thus:

1. The Writ Petitioner being unemployed registered his name in the District Employment Exchange Basirhat on 28.1.2002 and since the date of registration no interview call was given to the petitioner.

2. The Writ Petitioner came to know from a reliable source that a post of Clerk Group ‘C’ was lying vacant at Chowdhury Chwak Santimay Siksha Niketan (High School) P.O. Kamarganti P.S. Haroa District-North 24 Parganas and names of 35 candidates have been sponsored by the District Employment Exchange Authority filling up the said post of Clerk in the said school excluding the name of the petitioner. Petitioner’s name was not sponsored by the concerned Employment Exchange or office of the District Inspector of schools (SE) concerned.

3. The Writ Petitioner made an application for the post of Clerk in the said school but the authority of the said school did not accept his application on 24-05-2007 and the authority of the said school has also stated that there was no provision for taking any application from outsiders. The post of clerk was a skilled post and the Employment Exchange concerned did not sponsor the name of the petitioner.

4. No advertisement was made by the Respondent authorities for filling up the said vacant post and no notice was displayed in their notice board.

5. The petitioner being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the inaction of the respondent authorities moved a writ petition being No. WP No. 11494(W) of 2007. His Lordship the Hon’ble Justice Biswanath Samaddar was pleased to pass the following Order:

‘I therefore direct the concerned respondent authorities to permit the Writ Petitioner to appear at the interview for filling up the post of Clerk/Group ‘C’ staff in Chowdhury Chawk Santimay Siksha Niketan (High School) P.O. Kamarganti, P.S. Haroa, District North 24 Parganas and when such an interview is going to be held by the said authorities and if he/she is otherwise eligible. However this will create no equity in favour of the Writ Petitioner and the same shall abide by the result of the instant writ application.’

6. Pursuant to the Order dated 15-06-2007 passed in WP No. 11494

(W) of 2007 the Writ Petitioner/Respondent no-1 was allowed to appear at the interview for the post of Clerk at Chowdhury Chak Santimay Siksha Niketan (H.S.). The Writ Petitioner appeared at the interview and answered all questions put to him and stood first in the panel for the post of clerk prepared on the basis of interview held on 8-07-2007

7. The Writ Petitioner/respondent No-1 upon coming to know that the panel for the post of Clerk of the school concerned prepared on the basis of interview held on 8-07-2007 was sent to the District Inspector of schools (Secondary Education) for approval but the same not being approved made a representation to the Additional District Inspector of Schools (SE) Basirhat the respondent no.7 herein on 30/06/2010.

8. As the representation made before the Additional District Inspector of Schools by the Writ Petitioner/Respondent no-1 was not considered and decided by the concerned respondent a Writ application was moved before this Court by the petitioner/Respondent no-1 being WP. No. 14353 (W) of 2010.

9. By Order dated 10-01-2014 His Lordship the Hon’ble Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty was pleased to dispose W.P.14353 (W) of 2010 with W.P. 11494(W) of 2007 by observing and directing as follows:

‘Today both the matters have come up for hearing before this Court. Upon hearing the submissions made by Mr. Maitra, Learned Senior Advocate