IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that recruitment processes must adhere strictly to applicable rules and directives, emphasizing the importance of lawful procedures in public employment.

JUDGMENT :

Aniruddha Roy, J.

Facts:

1. This is the fourth round of writ litigation by the aspiring candidate for Group “C (CLERK)” post at Jagannathpur Arabinda Palli Bharati Vidyalaya, District – 24 Parganas (North) (for short, the said school).

2. Pursuant to and in terms of the prior permission issued by the respondent No. 3 a selection process was held following the and only on the basis of the sponsored candidates by the jurisdictional Employment Exchange.

3. In the first writ petition W.P. No. 21732 (W) of 2008 the petitioner challenged the selection process on the ground that in absence of wide publication by way of newspaper advertisement, the said selection process was illegal. By an order dated September 8, 2008, Annexure P-1 at page 24 to the writ petition, a co-ordinate bench disposed of the first writ petition with the following direction:

“As such, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction upon the respondent authorities not to hold the recruitment test from amongst the candidates only sponsored by the employment exchange. They are at liberty to make such recruitment after giving wide publication regarding the vacancy in question through different media. If such 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.”

4. Pursuant to and in terms of the said direction of the co-ordinate bench a wide newspaper publication was caused by the school authority on September 13, 2008, Annexure P-1 at page 31 to the writ petition. In terms of the said newspaper publication the petitioner applied and participated in the selection process.

5. In the said selection process an interview was held on September 24, 2008 and the panel was prepared by the selection committee. The said panel along with other requisite papers were forwarded by the Headmaster of the school to the respondent No. 4 for taking his ultimate decision with regard to grant of approval to the said panel.

6. Since the respondent No. 4 did not take any decision on the panel regarding the grant of its approval, the petitioner filed the second writ petition W.P. No. 9392 (W) of 2010. When the said second writ petition was taken up none appeared on behalf of the respondents to oppose the petitioner’s prayer at the time of hearing. A co-ordinate bench by its order dated March 23, 2011, Annexure P-2 at page 32 to the writ petition, disposed of the second writ petition with the following direction:

“After hearing the learned advocate for the petitioner and after considering the materials on record, this Court disposes of this writ petition by directing the concerned Additional District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), the respondent No. 4 herein, to consider the said panel and take the ultimate decision on the issue regarding grant of approval thereto in the light of the Recruitment Rules of 2005 positively within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.”

7. The record shows that until the time mentioned hereinafter the respondent State authorities did not consider the panel in terms of the said order of the co-ordinate bench dated March 23, 2011. The respondent No. 2 then by one of its impugned memo dated November 2, 2012, Annexure P-3 at page 37 to the writ petition, had observed as under:

“With reference to the subject noted above the undersigned has to request him to cancel the panel for Group – ‘C’ staff in favour of Jagannathpur Arabinda Palli Bharati Vidyalaya, North 24-Parganas and proceed with fresh procedure of recruitment of this vacancy.”

8. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said memo issued by the respondent No. 2 dated November 2, 2012 filed the third writ petition W.P. No. 81 (W) of 2013. The third writ petition was disposed of by a co-ordinate bench by its order dated June 13, 2013, Annexure P-4 at page 38 to the writ petition, with the following direction:

“In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside directin