Dilip Kumar Mondal vs State of West Bengal

S.N. Bhattacharjee, J.—The writ Petitioner appeared before the interview board for selection in the post of science teacher of Gogra High School of Bankura and produced all the certificates of extra-curricular activities. ''The Petitioner came to know that the Board only considered the certificates of academic qualifications but they did not consider the certificates of extracurricular activities. He wrote a letter to the D.I. of Schools (S.E.) on April.10, 1990. The Petitioner was given a hearing in the office of the D.I. and duly appeared before the second interview board on May 28, 1990 in response to the interview letter dated May 18, 1990. But the authorities were very much annoyed with the Petitioner and gave higher marks to one Navendu Ghosh who scored 0.6 marks more than the Petitioner. The Petitioner alleges that he had been given credits for extra-curricular activities on the basis of certificates produced by him he would have been first candidate to get the job. He has, therefore pressed for calling for the records relating to interview and the writs in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents not to appoint any candidate in the post of science teacher of the said school.

The Respondents have resisted the claim of the Petitioner by filing opposition affirmed by the Assistant Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Bankura wherein it has been stated that the writ petition was heard on May 28, 1990 on the points mentioned in his letter dated April 10, 1990 and on examination of the said certificates produced by the Petitioner the Assistant Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Bankura was satisfied that the said certificates did not deserve any credit and as such the school authorities were not asked to recast the panel.

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner was entitled to get some marks out of total marks 5 for extra-curricular activities. He has further pointed out that by an order of this Court dated December 6, 1990, the D.I. of Schools or the Secretary of Gogra High School were directed to produce all the papers relating to the candidates including the panel but the Respondents did not care to produce the records. The Learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the court should direct the Respondents to produce the records stated to interview for ascertaining whether the Petitioner was not given credits out of mala fide motive. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents has submitted that 10 years have lapsed since the order was passed and no step was taken by the Petitioner for hearing the petition and in the meantime Novendu, a successful candidate, has been serving in the school as Assistant Teacher for last 9 years and his appointment has been approved. The Petitioner having not been obtained any order of stay of appointment cannot be maintain this writ application after lapse of so many years. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents further submits that the application is not maintainable at all as the court cannot sit upon the assessment on merits by the members of the Selection Committee. In support of his argument he has relied upon a decision in National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences Vs. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman and others,

After having heard the Learned Counsel for both the sides i am of the opinion that the writ petition is not at all maintainable and as such the order dated December 6, 1990 calling for the official records need not be enforced. The reasons are as follows:

(i) The writ petition is not maintainable by reasons of the law laid down by the Apex Court in National Institute''s National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences Vs. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman and others, case wherein it has been held,

The Selection Committee takes interview of the candidates, makes assessment of their relative merits and recommends a panel of names for appointment. The function of the Selection Committee is neither judicial nor adjudicatory. It is purely administrative. There is no rule or regulation which requires the Selection Committee to record reasons. In the absence of any such, legal requirement the selection made without recording reasons cannot be found fault with ;

Administrative authority is under no legal obligation to record reasons in support of its decision. Indeed, even the principles of natural justice do not require an administrative authority or a Selection Committee or an examiner to record reasons for the selection or non-selection of a person in the absence of statutory requirement;

Giving of reasons for decision is different from and in principle distinct from, the requirements of procedural fairness. The procedural fairness is the main requirements in the administrative action. The ''fairness'' or fair procedure'' in the administrative action ought to be observed. The Selection Committee cannot be an exception to this principle. It must take a decision reasonably without being guided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration ;

When there is nothing to show that the selection was arbitrary or whimsical or the Selection Committee did not act fairly towards a particular candidate and on the contrary he was placed second in the panel, that by itself indicates that there was proper consideration of his case and he has been treated fairly. When the Selection Committee consisted of experts in the subject for selection and they were men of high status and also of unquestionable impartiality, the Court should be slow to interfere with their opinion.

The second reason is that the candidate who will be affected by this order has not been made a party in this case. Sri Novendu Ghosh stood first in the interview, his name figured as No. 1 in the panel. His interest will be adversely affected if writ petition is allowed and accordingly without opportunity given hearing the prayer in the writ petition cannot be granted without violating doctrine of the ''audi alteram partem''. I am told that Sri Novendu Ghosh has joined the service and has been working for the last few years. The opportunity to amend the petition by impleading Novendu Ghosh as a party has neither been prayed for nor can be allowed at the stage. The writ petition, therefore, is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed.