The court ruled that a writ petition remained maintainable for appointment relief despite claims of infructuous nature due to previous court orders and established criteria for appointment.

JUDGMENT :

BIVAS PATTANAYAK, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record.

2. By the present writ petition, the petitioners have sought for publication of the panel with regard to recruitment process initiated in the year 2009 and for issuance of appointment letters in favour of the empanelled candidates including the petitioners, forthwith.

3. The writ petition is moved on behalf of the petitioner nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 16.

4. At the very outset, Mr. Talay Masood, Siddiqui, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the District Primary School Council, Malda submits that the writ petition is not at all maintainable. In the present writ petition, the petitioners herein have prayed for publication of the panel. However, the said panel has already been published on 10th February, 2021 pursuant to order of this Hon’ble Court passed on 8th January, 2021 in WPA No. 15128 of 2017 (Nihar Biswas & others vs. State of West Bengal & others) along with other writ petitions and as such the writ petition has become infructuous. The petitioners by way of supplementary affidavit have tried to mould their prayers in order to seek for their appointment, which is a change in cause of action. It is settled proposition of law that one has to file a separate writ petition in the event of change in cause of action and the prayer cannot be moulded subsequently. He further informs that three of the writ petitioners namely, petitioner no.3, 6 and 11 who were empanelled has been given appointment. The petitioner nos.8, 9 and 15 filed separate writ petitions and pursuant to order passed in those writ petitions appointment has been given. The aforesaid facts have not been disclosed in the present writ petition. One can claim equity if he comes to Court with clean hands. There is suppression of material facts. He also indicates that petitioner no.1, Apurba Karmakar has mentioned the name of his mother in the cause-title and in the subsequent writ petition filed by him being WPA 13419 of 2024 he has mentioned his father’s name in the cause-title. In light of his aforesaid submissions, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. On the contrary, Mr. Subir Sanyal, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners in their prayer apart from praying for publication of panel have also sought for issuance of appointment letters in their favour. As such there is no change in cause of action by seeking appointment. Therefore, the instant writ petition is very much maintainable. Upon considering the fact that the recruitment process undertaken in the year 2009 had irregularities galore, this Hon’ble Court passed order on 26^th April, 2024 in WPA 25712 of 2022 directing for giving appointment to candidates who fulfils two conditions, firstly they have been called for interview and secondly they have filed the writ petition till 25^th April, 2024. The order dated 26^th April, 2024 does not specify the nature of the writ petition. The present writ petition has been filed on 7^th November, 2019. Subsequent orders have been passed by this Court wherein benefit of order dated 26th April, 2024 has been extended to the petitioners who fulfilled the twin conditions. He informs this Court that the petitioner nos.3, 6 and 11 and 8, 9, 15 and 17 have already been given appointment. Petitioner no.7 does not intend to press his prayer before this Court. Therefore, the petitioner nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 16 seek for similar relie