The court confirmed that appointments must honor reservation policies, and errors by administrative authorities invalidating such appointments cannot be retrospectively rectified to the detriment of the appointed candidates.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE, J.

1. The petitioner and private respondent No. 7 have been embroiled in protracted litigation for more than one and a half decades over the engagement to the post of para teacher at Dhoradaha Union High School, Nadia.

2. The origin of the dispute, which has resulted in prolonged litigation, can be traced back to a selection process initiated in 2004 by the District Project Officer, Sarba Siksha Mission, Nadia. To implement that process, a notification dated 10th June 2004 was issued for the recruitment of 4,000 para teachers in various schools across the district. The notification specified that 50% of the posts would be reserved for women.

3. There were seven vacant posts of para teachers in Dhoradaha Union High School, Nadia. Of these, four were reserved for women and three for male candidates, in accordance with the 50% reservation policy for women. Upon completion of the selection process, appointments were made against all seven posts. At that stage, neither the petitioner nor private respondent No. 7 submitted their candidature for any of the posts.

4. Subsequently, one of the female para teachers, namely Susmita Mondal, resigned from her post, resulting in a vacancy. The school authorities initiated the necessary steps to fill the post that had fallen vacant due to her resignation. At that time, both the petitioner and private respondent No. 7 submitted their candidature for the said post. The petitioner, Rafiqul Alam Biswas, was engaged in the vacant post of para teacher at Dhoradaha Union High School (hereinafter referred to as ‘the school’) in 2006.

5. In the meantime, private respondent No. 7 submitted a representation before the competent authority, claiming her entitlement to engagement in the said post. However, despite receiving the representation, the authority failed to take any action. As a result, private respondent No. 7 was compelled to file a writ petition, being W.P. No. 25569 (W) of 2006. The said petition was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 18th December 2006, directing the competent authority to consider and dispose of her representation in accordance with law, within the time stipulated therein.

6. Pursuant to the order dated 18th December 2006, the District Project Officer issued an order on 31st January 2011, stating that the prayer for engagement made by private respondent No. 7 could not be considered, as a Government Order dated 27th March 2010, issued by the State Project Officer, had imposed a complete ban on such engagements with effect from that date. However, the order dated 31st January 2011 also recorded that an inquiry would be conducted into the allegation made by private respondent No. 7 regarding the illegality of the petitioner’s engagement.

7. Subsequently, the District Project Officer found that the allegation raised by private respondent No. 7 was justified. Accordingly, in 2011, she was engaged in place of the petitioner in the post of para teacher at the school.

8. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a writ petition, being W.P. No. 11690 (W) of 2011. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 4th July 2013. The Bench observed that the District Project Officer had acted erroneously, as no reason was assigned in support of the claim that the post was reserved for a woman. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the District Project Officer for taking a final