Chayan Kumar Mondal vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

Tapabrata Chakraborty, J

Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept on record. The present writ petition has been preferred inter alia praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondents to cancel the entire selection process conducted by the authorities of Chandrakona Vidyasagar Mahavidyalaya (in short, the said college) for filling up a post of Library Clerk.

Mr. Bose, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that responding to an advertisement published on 17th October, 2019, the petitioner applied for the post of Library Clerk in the said college. He was called for a written test scheduled on 8th December, 2019. He duly participated in the same and thereafter he was called for a computer application test and an interview on 14th December, 2019. A ten minutes computer test was conducted by four invigilators. Thereafter, a fifteen minutes interview was conducted by a board consisting of four members wherein the teacher-in-charge of the said college and a nominee of governing body of the said college were members.

Drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraph 8 of the writ petition, he submits that on the date of interview, the private respondent no.7 was considered as a very important person and was extended all assistance by the college staff. The petitioner came to learn that she was the wife of Sri Sougata Dandapat, the president of the governing body of the said college. In view of such relationship, the president of the governing body could not have been a member of the interview board. Such presence and participation of the president of the said college in the selection process, in which his wife was a candidate, maligns the entire selection process. The petitioner lodged complaints to that effect on 16th December, 2019 and again on 17th December, 2019 to the respondent no.6 but the same were not responded to. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court.

Mr. Mondal, learned advocate appearing for the college authorities denies and disputes the contention of the petitioner and submits that prior to the written test, which was scheduled on 8th December, 2019, the president of the governing body tendered his resignation from the selection committee through a representation dated 16th November, 2019 since his wife was a participant in the selection process. Such resignation was accepted by the governing body by a resolution dated 22nd November, 2019. Let the resignation letter, as produced, be kept on record.

Placing reliance upon the records produced, Mr. Mondal submits that the college authorities conducted the selection process in strict consonance with the government order dated 25th August, 2017. The petitioner obtained 46 marks in the written test of 150 marks, 44 marks in the computer test of 50 marks and 13 marks in the interview of 20 marks, whereas, the respondent no.7 obtained 116 marks in the written test, 16.67 marks in the computer test and 12.25 in the interview. Let the documents, as produced, be kept on record.

He further summits that after completion of the selection process, the records, in terms of the government order dated 25th August, 2017, have been forwarded to the Director of Public Instruction for approval, in accordance with law.

The allegation of favouritism and mala fide as leveled against the college authorities is not acceptable to this Court since the president of the governing body tendered his resignation from the selection committee and such resignation was accepted by the governing body of the said college prior to the date scheduled for the written test.

It appears from the records that the respondent no.7 secured less marks than the petitioner in interview but in the written test the said respondent no.7 obtained 116 marks whereas the petitioner obtained only 46 marks. Upon adding the marks obtained in the written test, computer test and interview, the petitioner secured 103 marks whereas the respondent no.7 obtained 144.92 marks.

In the said conspectus, no interference is called for and this Court is unable to grant relief, as prayed for, by the petitioner.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be handed over to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities.