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

The Hon’ble Justice PARTHA SARATHI SEN WPA 13677 of 2010 Sandip Singha and Ors.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal and Ors.

With W.P.A. 14366 of 2010 Prodip Kumar Guchait and Ors.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal and Ors.

With W.P.A. 8072 of 2012 With With CAN 4 of 2024 Tamal Goswami and Ors.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal and Ors.

For the Petitioner in Mr. Sarwar Jahan, Adv., (WPA 13677 of 2010 & : Ms. Anulekha Bera Maiti, Adv WPA 8072 of 2012)

For the Petitioner in : Mr. Sudeep Sanyal, Sr. Adv., (WPA 14366 of 2010) Mr. Snehasis Jana, Adv., Mrs. T. Das, Adv.

Mr. Chandrachur Lahiri, Adv.

For the DPSC, Paschim Medinipur: Mr. Aurobinda Chatterjee,Senior Adv., Mr. Ranjan Saha, Adv.

For the State: Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh, Adv., Mr. Karti Chandra Kapas, Adv Hearing concluded on: 02.04.2025. Judgment on: 10.04.2025.

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J. : –

1. Since in the instant three writ petitions the subject matters of challenge are identical and since common questions of facts and laws are involved, the instant three writ petitions are taken up together for hearing and this Court thus proposes to dispose of the instant three writ petitions by passing a common judgement.

2. In the instant three writ petitions the writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondents/authorities more specifically against respondent Paschim Mednipur District Primary Council (herein after referred to as the said ‘council’ in short) and its functionaries for cancellation of the selection procedure for appointment of primary teachers pursuant to the revised notification as published in the year 2009 by the said council.

3. In course of hearing Mr. Jahan, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners in WPA 13677 of 2010 at the very outset draws attention of this Court to paragraph 6 of the said writ petition. It is argued by Mr. Jahan that from the later part of the said paragraph 6 it would reveal that five candidates were placed in the final panel as published by the said council though the said five candidates could not qualify in the written examination and were thus not selected for interview. It is further submitted by Mr. Jahan that in the affidavit-in-

opposition as filed by the said council as affirmed on 19.11.2015 it has been practically admitted by the said council that due to some data base error of one M/S UMC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (who were entrusted with the responsibility to publish the result of 2009 examination by the said council) some mistakes cropped up for which some results were not correctly reflected in the website in respect of the result of 2009 examination.

4. Mr. Jahan also draws attention of this Court to the supplementary affidavit as affirmed on 08.02.2017 by the writ petitioner no.4 in connection with WPA 13677 of 2010. It is submitted by Mr. Jahan that from the said supplementary affidavit dated 08.02.2017 the following illegalities and/or irregularities have been noticed by the writ petitioners namely:-

a. A good number of candidates have been awarded excess marks by manipulating ENM marks, b. A good number of candidates have been awarded higher marks by way of manipulation in the average marks obtained by them in Madhyamik or equivalent examination.

c. Several candidates have been selected who are of over age i.e.

more than 40 years as on 01.01.2009.

d. Some candidates belonging to Schedule Castes category have been empanelled adding higher marks in their academic qualification disobeying the rules of the said examination.

e. Several candidates have been selected in the Scheduled Tribe category though they do not belong to the Scheduled Tribe category.

f. In the category of Exempted Candidates excess marks have been awarded by manipulating ELM marks.

5. At this juncture Mr. Jahan draws attention of this Court to the counter affidavit as filed on behalf of the said council in connection with WPA 13677 of 2010 and as affirmed o