IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay

WPA 17207 of 2017

Md. Aslam Sk.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ekramul Bari

: Mr. Imtiaj Uddin

For the State : Mr. Sagnik Chatterjee

Judgment on : 09.12.2025

Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-

1. An order dated May 25, 2017, passed by the respondent

No.3/District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Birbhum [in short ‘the DI’], has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. The issue relates to non approval of the panel for recruitment of a clerk in the respondent/school, in which the writ petitioner has been

mentioned as a successful candidate in the selection process.

2. The respondent No.3 has founded his decision principally on

the ground that in the recruitment process, the provisions of the West Bengal Schools (Recruitment of Non-Teaching Staff) Rules 2005, vide the Government Order No. 1594-SE(S) dated 26.12.2005 and the Management Rules 1969, have been violated, so far as fixation of full marks as well as preparation

of the individual score sheets, are concerned. Also that formation of the selection committee was invalid being not in consonance with the Rules and the attendance and individual mark-sheets have also not been produced. Hence, he has held the panel to be invalid.

3. Challenging the said decision of the respondent No.3, Mr. Bari learned advocate for the writ petitioner has submitted that the respondent school has initiated the recruitment process as per prior permission granted to it by the respondent No.3 on August 11, 2006. Accordingly, the process was initiated and selection/interview was held on August 29, 2007. After completion of the process, a panel was prepared wherein the writ petitioner was placed at the first position.

4. He says that the said panel has once been challenged by the second empaneled candidate, vide the writ petition No. W.P. 19458 (w) of 2007 and the Court directed for a time bound decision by the present respondent No.3, as regards the grievance of said petitioner, that is the said second empaneled candidate, vide the order dated September 26, 2007.

5. Since the school forwarded the panel for approval to the respondent No.3, by dint of an order dated January 18, 2008, the said respondent rejected the panel and also the prayer for approval of the same, with an observation that due to some procedural defects, the panel could not be considered. The matter was sent back to the school to hold interview afresh, upon cancellation of the process of interview dated August 29, 2007 and the result thereof.

6. That the present petitioner filed his first writ petition challenging the decision of the respondent authority dated January 18, 2008 and the notice issued by the school for fresh interview dated February 26, 2008, being W.P. No. 4236 (w) of 2008. The Court sets aside the order of the respondent dated January 18, 2008. The Court in its order dated February 16, 2017, has recorded reasons that the original copy of the panel being misplaced in the office of the respondent there would not be any impropriety by the said respondent to proceed with the photocopy of the panel, concerning its approval.

7. Mr. Bari learned advocate has submitted that hence the respondent conducted hearing and passed the order dated May 25, 2017, which is under challenge in the instant writ petition. He says that the grounds mentioned in the impugned order are not tenable in the eye of law, that the respondent, by passing the order impugned in this writ petition, has acted beyond scope of the earlier order of this Court dated February 16, 2017 and fresh grounds have been mentioned as a part of its endeavour to strengthen its case subsequently. According to him procedural lapses as mentioned by the respondent in the said impugned order are baseless as the school is required only to send the panel to the respondent for approval, as per Rules

9(7) of the Recruitment Rules of