21.01.2026 Court No.13 Item No. 6 sp FMA 300 of 2024 With CAN 1 of 2025 Nitai Chandra Mandal Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Samiran Mandal, Mr. S.C. Dhara.

… For the appellant.

Mr. Pinaki Dhole, Mr. Avishek Prasad.

.. For the State.

Mr. Nitish Samanta.

… For the respondent no. 6.

Mr. Abhinaba Dan, Ms. Shreyashee Mitra.

… For the School Authority.

1.The appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 19^th September, 2023 passed by a Single Bench of this Court.

2. The facts of the case are, inter alia, that that the appellant/writ petitioner participated in a selection process for the post of Clerk in Baidyanathpur High School (H.S.), Bankura. The selection process was initiated by the school after due permission from the D.I. of Schools (SE), Bankura. Following the 2005 Rules of Recruitment, the school applied before the concerned Employment Exchange for sponsoring 20 names.

3. The appellant/writ petitioner after the selection process was complete was empanelled in the second position. The candidate in the first position did not join the particular school. The applicant thereupon became entitled to join the post.

4.The panel prepared by the Selection Committee was approved by the Managing Committee of the school and sent to the D.I. of Schools (SE), Bankura for approval.

5.Since the D.I. was not taking a decision in the matter, the appellant/writ petitioner filed W.P. 31480 (W) of 2017, which was disposed of by a Single Bench directing consideration of the petitioner’s representation.

6.The D.I. thereafter passed an order dated 30^th May, 2018, rejecting the entire panel. The ground for rejection by the D.I. was that in addition to Employment Exchange, the school ought to have advertised the post in question.

7.Across the bar today, the learned counsel for the D.I. has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. Vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and others reported in (1996) 6 Supreme Court Cases 216. In the said decision, it was mandated by a three- Judge Bench of the Supreme Court that in additional to Employment Exchange, advertisement should be made mandatory in respect of recruitment to any Government post under Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

8.The D.I., however, relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, particularly para 30 thereof, to hold that since no advertisement was published, the selection process is vitiated.

9. Based on the above, the Trial Judge, found that the respondent authorities were not unjustified in cancelling the selection process for want of advertisement. The Single Bench refused to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10. It is now well-settled that recruitment process can be undertaken both after receiving sponsorship from Employment Exchange as well as by public advertisement. The 2005 Recruitment Rules of the State prescribes that recruitment of Group-C post should be made after the Employment Exchange concerned is requested to sponsor the names. It is only when adequate numbers of names are not sponsored that a public advertisement inviting application is to be resorted.

11. The argument of the learned counsel for the

appellant, to the extent that the selection process was in

terms of the Rules framed by the State and hence could

not have been cancelled by the State itself, cannot be

faulted. There was only one vacancy and 20 candidates were sponsored by the concerned Employment Exchange. The appellant/writ petitioner was a reserved category candidate and was rightly placed at the second position in the panel.

12. It is equally possible for the respondent State to contend that in view of the dicta of the Supreme Court both in Uma Devi Case (supra) and K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao (supra), both advertisement and sponsorship through Employment Exchange are required to be followed in any recruitment pr