IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay WPA 1982 of 2014 Manoj Kumar Singh Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Saibal Acharyya : Mr. Prahlad Ch. Ghosh : Mr. Subir Hazra :

For the State respondent Mr. Pritam Chaudhury : Mr. Sartik Dewan Judgment on : 25/07/2025 Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-

(1) An order of the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas, dated May 8, 2013 (being annexure - P4 to the writ petition) is under challenge in the instant case. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside of the said impugned order and for directions to be issued on the respondent No. 3/District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education) North 24 Parganas [herein after referred to as “DI”], to approve the panel for the post of Group-D staff in Nimta High School (H.S.) and also to the school authority/respondent No. 4 and 5, to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner, who happens to be the first empanelled candidate in the said panel.

(2) It is necessary that the factual background of the case be discussed in a nutshell, which is as follows. According to the petitioner, the respondent school authority has obtained prior permission of the respondent/DI, in the year 2000, to fill up the post of Group-D staff in the said school. First round of interview was held on November 25, 2000, but the results were postponed. Thereafter, the respondent/DI has accorded further permission to hold the interview, vide his letter dated February 17, 2010. The petitioner has specifically relied on the text of the said letter dated February 17, 2010 that as per direction of respondent/ DI in the said letter, the school authority was to hold re-interview for recruitment of two vacant posts in the school, with the same set of candidates, along with already sponsored candidates from “live register”, under the died-in- harness category. Accordingly, the process of interview of the specified candidates was held again and a panel was prepared. That, the school authority has forwarded the said panel to the respondent/DI on April 9, 2010.

(3) On the allegation of inaction of the respondent/DI in considering the panel as above, the petitioner had moved this Court previously, in which the Court has directed by dint of order dated June 25, 2012, that the respondent/DI should consider for approval of the panel and pass a reasoned order within the stipulated time. The Court, in the said order has proceeded to add and clarify that the Recruitment Rules prevailing at the time when the process was started, should be taken into consideration by the respondent/DI, while considering regarding approval of the panel. The resultant order is that dated May 8, 2013, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

(4) The findings and directions of the respondent/DI in the said impugned order dated May 8, 2013, inter alia is that as per notification No. 2398-GA dated December 15, 2008, the vacancy of Group-D post in the school was of 1st Stage in nature. That, the said vacancy should have to be filled up by the candidates only from died-in-harness category, whose names have been registered in the „live register‟, being maintained with the DI. The DI in the said impugned order has practically held the panel to be improper and in violation of the existing Rules and the notification No. 2398-GA dated December 15, 2008.

(5) The writ petitioner is represented by Mr. Saibal Acharyya. He has first referred to an order of this Court dated June 27, 2000, in W.P. No. 8505(w) of 2000. It is submitted that the said writ petition was moved by the present petitioner and the Court had directed that the petitioner should be allowed to appear at the interview, for filling up the post of Group-D staff of the said school, subject to his being eligible for the post and the process of interview having not been completed.

(6) He has also referred to the letter of