Animesh Das vs State Of West Bengal And Others

The writ petition filed by the writ petitioner is dismissed solely on the ground that once the life of the panel has expired, the prayers made in the writ petition are not maintainable.

Admittedly, the process for recruitment of Laboratory Attendant was initiated in the year 2013. The School Authority subsequently prepared a panel and recasted it and sent the same to the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Kolkata for approval. It is not in dispute that the relevant Rules, which has a statutory flavour, requires an approval of the panel by the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) for appointment of the successful candidate from the said panel. It is also not in dispute that the life span of the panel is one year from the date of approval by the said Authority.

The Single Bench did not consider the fact as to whether the panel sent by the School Authority to the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) received any approval or the same has been simply kept in suspended animation by the said Authority.

If the period of limitation provided in the statutory document shall reckon from the date of the approval by the said Authority, it cannot expire upon the lapse of one year from the date when the same sent to the said Authority, if the Authority did not take any steps on approval thereof. If the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) has kept the said panel in the file and did not take any decision, the question of limitation becomes premature, as it never commenced.

Both the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties are ad idem on the above aspect and have also relied upon a Memo dated 17th September 2002 to have an application in the perspective of the dispute involved herein.

The moot question, which requires answer, is whether the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) ever approved the panel sent by the College Authority on 20th March 2014.

Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4, candidly submits after receiving instruction from the District Inspector of Schools (SE) that the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) never approved the panel as the same is kept pending. However, he submits that the first empanelled candidate was found to have produced fake certificate and a letter was issued on 31st March 2015 to the School Authority to take immediate steps for lodging a First Information Report against him as well as the Secretary of the Managing Committee.

Mr. Vaisya is unable to answer the further query of the court as to whether any further steps were taken by the Authority after issuance of the said notice.

In the meantime, the writ petitioner/appellant relies a document purportedly issued by the first empanelled candidate to the School Authority, where he showed unwillingness to join the said post and, therefore, intended to withdraw from the said recruitment post.

This fact emboldened the writ petitioner/appellant to become vocal that being a second empanelled candidate, he should be considered for such post and the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) may be directed to take a decision thereupon.

Indubitably, the writ petitioner/appellant is the second empanelled candidate and there is a dispute on the veracity and genuinity of the document submitted by the first empanelled candidate at the time of participation in the recruitment process. We cannot overlook the fact that the said first empanelled candidate has now withdrawn his candidature.

We, therefore, cannot accept the findings arrived at by the Single Bench that the said panel lost its force having expired on the expiration of one year when the limitation would reckon from the date of approval by the District Inspector of Schools (SE). If the limitation has not reckoned or started, it is still a valid panel before the Authority, who cannot shy away from its statutory responsibility in taking a decision pertaining to the approval of the same.

We, therefore, set aside the impugned order.

The District Inspector of Schools (SE), Kolkata is directed to take decision as to whether the approval to a recast panel of the candidates forwarded by the School Authority on 20th March 2014 can be granted upon taking into account all relevant factors necessary and required therefor and such decision must be taken within three weeks from the date of communication of this order.

It goes without saying that we had no occasion to enter into the merit of the said recast panel submitted by the School Authority and the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Kolkata is free to take decision as permissible in law.

The appeal is, thus, disposed of.

In view of disposal of the appeal itself, the connected application being CAN 2695 of 2017 has become infructuous and the same is also disposed of.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.