Sandip Kumar Sarkar and Another vs State of West Bengal and Others

Dipankar Datta, J.—The petitioners, permanent residents of villages within No-9 Rajapur Gram Panchayat in the district of Murshidabad, call in question the selection and consequent appointments of the respondents 8 and 9 as Siksha Samprasarak of Gobinda Mondalpara Madhyamik Siksha Kendra (hereafter the said MSK) on the ground that the impugned selection has been conducted in clear breach of the applicable guidelines laying down the procedure for appointment to Madhyamik Siksha Kendras. To give effect to the national goal for universalization of elementary education and the continuing effort in the State of West Bengal to provide education to all children within the State, the State Government has formulated a policy for opening of Sishu Siksha Kendras for children in the age group of 5 + to 8 + and Madhyamik Siksha Kendras for children in the age group of 9 + to 13 +. Guidelines have been framed for effective functioning of such Siksha Kendras and the Secretary to the Govt, of West Bengal. Department of Panchayats and Rural Development along with his letter dated 10th July. 2003, while referring to the revised guidelines of Madhyamik Siksha Karmasuchi, laid down the mode of selection of Siksha Samprasarika/Samprasarak of Madhyamik Siksha Karmasuchi and forwarded the same to the District Magistrate, Murshidabad for strict compliance. The said guidelines lay down detailed procedure in relation to opening of a Madhyamik Siksha Kendra, the constitution of its managing committee, its management, conditions for securing financial and other support from the State Government, responsibility of the gram panchayat, number of Siksha Samprasarak/Samprasarikas to be engaged, their qualifications and conditions of service, construction of buildings and other connected matters. In relation to the present controversy, this Court is concerned only with the mode of selection and/or procedure for engagement of Siksha Samprasarak in the said MSK. Mode of selection and Clauses 19, 20 and 21 of the guidelines being relevant for the purpose of the present dispute are extracted hereunder:

Mode of Selection of Siksha Samprasarika/Samarasarah of Madhyamik Siksha Karmasuchi:

"Once the setting of an MSK is approved, the Managing Committee of the MSK will give wide publicity of the same and applications shall be invited by the Managing Committee (MC) from the intending candidates having at least graduate degree for the posts of Samprasaraks/Samprasarikas from residents of the Gram Panchayat area or from the residents of the adjoining Gram Panchayat areas.

The applicant shall mention the group for which he/she desires to be considered. (Life Science group, Mathematics & Physical Science group, Language group, History-Geography group).

All the applications shall be duly received and entered into a register to be maintained by MC group-wise; showing the name, address, highest educational qualification and date of submission of application.

After the last date of receiving application is over the applications should be divided into four bunches, one for each group. The applications shall then be scrutinized to see whether the subjects in the group for which the candidate has applied for was taken at the graduation level by the applicant.

The valid applications then shall be arranged according to highest qualification and highest number (in aggregate) obtained and a panel shall be prepared.

The panel shall then be published in the notice-board of the proposed MSK.

The Managing Committee shall thereafter engage on contract, the candidate appearing at the top of each group of candidates. Model from of contract has been provided along with the guidelines.

Selection of Samprasaraks/Samprasarikas will have to be made in the manner provided in the guidelines without any deviation.

The Managing Committee may solicit the assistance of the Executive Officer and the Karmadhyaksha of the Shiksha-Sanskriti-Tathya-O-Khrira Sthayuee Samiti of the concerned Panchayat Samiti in the matter."

REVISED GUIDELINES ************

NUMBER OF SIKHA SAMPRASARAKS/SAMPRASARIKAS IN AN MSK:

Each MSK shall have one Mukhya Siksha Samprasarak/ Samprasanka and five other Siksha Samprasaraks/ Samprasarikas. One Siksha Samprasarak/Samprasanka, including Mukhya Samprasarak/ Samprasanka, should be there for teaching the following subjects :

a) Life Science

b) Physical Sciences including Mathematics

c) English

d) Mother Language

e) History including Social Sciences

f) Geography including Social Sciences.

In the first year of functioning of an MSK there will be two Samprasarak/ Samprasanka. one for language and social sciences group and the other for science and mathematics group. In the second year there shall be a separate Samprasarak/Samprasarika for life science and a Samprasarak/ Samprasanka for History and Geography including social sciences and thus there shall be four Samprasaraks/ Samprasarikas for the MSK in its second year of functioning. In the third year there shall be two more Samprasaraks/Samprasarikas one for English or mother language and the other for History including social sciences or Geography including social sciences depending upon who was appointed in the previous year and thus there shall be six Samprasaraks/Samprasarikas from the third year of functioning of an MSK.

REMUNERATION FOR THE SIKSHA SAMPRASARA KS/SAMPRASARIKAS:

Since the Mukhya Shiksha Samprasarak/ Samprasarika, and other Siksha Samprasaraks/Samprasarikas would be selected and engaged by the MM.C. at the initiative of the community, they would be free to fix the remuneration payable to Siksha Samprasaraks/ Samprasarikas. However, remuneration payable to each Siksha Samprasaraks/ Samprasarika should not be less than 2000.00 per month for pass graduates and 2500.00 for honours/post graduates and 3000.00 for Mukhya Siksha Samprasaraks/Samprasarikas. The State Government would extend financial support for engagement of Siksha Samprasaraks/ Samprasarikas @ 2000.00 per Siksha Samprasaraks/Samprasarikas who are pass graduates, (3,2500.00 per Siksha Samprasaraks/ Samprasarikas who are honours/post graduates and @ 3000.00 per Mukhya Siksha Samprasaraks/Samprasarikas respectively per month. In case the M. C. decides to pay more, they may do so but the additional cost has to be borne by them and the Government would not take any financial liability on this score. Furthermore the State Government would continue to give financial support for engagement of Mukhya Siksha Samprasaraks/Samprasarikas and other Siksha Samprasaraks/Samprasarikas only if they attend the Kendra on at least 90% days in a month on which the Kendra remains open.

QUALIFICATION OF SIKSHA SAMPRASARAK/SAMPRASARIKA :

The MC shall engage a person as Siksha Samprasarak/ Samprasarika provided he/she fulfills the following conditions :

i) He/she is at least 40 years old

ii) He/she is a resident of the same Gram Panchayat where the MSK is located. If qualified persons are not available in the same Gram Panchayat for engagement as Siksha Samprasaraks/ Samprasarikas, then any person residing in the adjoining Gram Panchayats/Municipalities having required qualification may also be engaged.

iii) The persons who are graduates from a recognized University having studied at the graduation level the subject for which they are being considered would be eligible for engagement as Siksha Samprasaraks/Samprasarikas. Post graduates/honours graduates should get preference. In case of mukhya Siksha Samprasaraks/ Samprasarikas retired Head Master/Head Mistress or at least a retired teacher of a High/Junior High School preferably with post graduate/honours degree should be selected,

iv) Ladies and retired teachers of high/junior high schools and candidates having B.Ed, should be given preference. For any subject the first choice will be a masters degree holder with B. Ed degree, followed by a honours degree holder with B. Ed. degree. They should have precedence over other candidates in the order mentioned above. Similarly a lady will get precedence over any gentleman having same qualification for being engaged as Samprasarika.

v) In the event of non-availability of Siksha Samprasaraks/ Samprasarikas having presibed age and qualification as mentioned above, the State Government may. on receipt of specific proposal, relax the specific age to 35 years. There, however shall not be any relaxation with regard to academic qualification."

The petitioners claim to have requisite qualification for being appointed as Siksha Samprasaraks in the said MSK. While the petitioner No. 1 is a Science Graduate, the petitioner No. 2 is an Arts Graduate as well as a trained candidate (he has a degree of B.Ed to his credit). They are aggrieved because the respondents 8 and 9 have been engaged as Samprasaraks in Science and History respectively in the said MSK without there being a proper selection process undertaken in accordance with the applicable guidelines.

They claim to be the only persons within the concerned gram panchayat area having the requisite qualifications for engagement but since the Managing Committee of the said MSK did not give wide publicity of its intention to engage Samprasaraks, they could not offer their candidature and consequently they were not considered. The other ground of challenge is that both respondents 8 and 9 are below the age fixed by the Government for engagement as Samprasarak. It is also their grievance that respondent No. 8 is not a permanent resident of the area within Rajapur Gram Panchayat and, therefore, was not eligible to be considered for engagement.

While admitting the writ petition, a learned Judge of this Court called for affidavits and restrained the State respondents from approving the engagement of the respondents 8 and 9. As a consequence of this interim order, their engagements have not been approved. Counter-affidavits to the writ petition have been filed by the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the said MSK (respondent No. 7) and the respondent No. 9. In addition thereto, applications for vacating interim order filed by the respondents 8 and 9 (CAN 3521 of 07) and the respondent No. 7 (CAN 8600 of 2006) are on record. The vacating applications have been heard along with the writ petition.

According to the respondent No. 7, permission was granted by the Panchayats and Rural Development Department, Government of West Bengal vide G.O. dated 18.07.05 to impart education to the students of the said MSK for the year 2005-06 and in terms thereof the Managing Committee in its meeting dated 23.07.05 decided to appoint two Samprasaraks, one for the Language group and the other for the Science and Mathematics group. In terms of the resolution so adopted, a notice was issued on 27.05.05 through the Prodhan of the local gram panchayat. The notice was hung up on the notice board of the local gram panchayat, the notice board of the said MSK and some other important places seeking applications from intending candidates of the locality having requisite qualifications for the post in question. Although the notice has not been annexed to the counter affidavit, copy thereof has been placed before this Court by Mr. Huq, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 7. It appears therefrom that applications were invited from the permanent residents of Rajapur Gram Panchayat who had retired as Headmaster/ Headmistress or Assistant Teacher of schools as well as from unemployed educated people of the locality who had crossed 40 years of age for the posts of Samprasarak/Samprasarika for Language group as well as for Mathematics and Physical Science group on contract basis for one year. The last date for filing applications was mentioned as 02.08.05.

In the affidavit, however, the important places where the said recruitment notices were hung up have not been specified. No wonder, the response to the notice was indifferent.

While three applications were received for the post of Samprasarak for the Language group, none applied for Mathematics and Physical Science group. One Nurul Islam stood first and was engaged as Samprasarak for the Language group. So far as the Mathematics and Physical Science group is concerned, the Managing Committee in its meeting dated 05-08-05 resolved to issue fresh recruitment notice. This notice also has not been annexed to the affidavit but copy thereof has been placed before this Court. It appears therefrom that applications were invited from the permanent residents of Katlamari II Gram Panchayat for filling up the said posts. The qualifications mentioned in the notice were that the applicants must be more than 35 years of age and must be a graduate in Pure Science.

Interestingly, last date for filing applications was not mentioned in the notice. Why the age limit was brought down from 40 years to 35 years and why permanent residents of Katlamari II Gram Panchayat were permitted to submit applications excluding the permanent residents of Rajapur Gram Panchayat have also not been indicated in the counter affidavit. One reason may be that there was no response to the earner notice inviting applications for the post of Samprasarak in Physical Science and Mathematics group from the permanent residents of Rajapur Gram Panchayat, but it has transpired that there were other reasons to invite applications from the permanent residents of Katlamari-II Gram Panchayat, to which this Court shall advert later.

The respondent No. 8, a permanent resident of Katlamari II Gram Panchayat, aged 36 years, was the sole applicant for the post of Samprasarak for Mathematics and Physical Science group and the Managing Committee in its meeting dated 13.08.05 selected him and, thereafter, engaged him as Samprasarak for the year 2005-06 vide appointment letter dated 14.08.05 for the period till 30.04.06. The respondent No. 8 having joined the post, an agreement was executed on 16.08.05 in this behalf and, thereafter, the respondent No. 8 on the basis of his satisfactory performance as a Samprasarak had his engagement renewed for the year 2006-07 and fresh agreement was executed for the period till 30.04.07. The Managing Committee at the same time had renewed engagement of the said Nurul Islam and the fresh agreement that was executed was to be operative till 30.04.07.

It is further stated in the counter affidavit that in its meeting held on 05.05.06 the Managing Committee of the said MSK decided to engage two more Siksha Samprasaraks, one for the Life Science group and the other for the History group for the year 2006-07. A copy of the recruitment notice dated 08.05.06 has been handed over to this Court by learned Counsel for the respondent No. 7, though reference thereto has not been made in the counter affidavit.

It appears from this recruitment notice that applications were invited for filling up the posts in question from among permanent residents of Rajapur Gram Panchayat. The qualifications which a prospective candidate were required to fulfill were that he must be above 40 years of age and that he must be a graduate in Arts (for History) and in Science (for Life Science). The last date far filing applications was 15.05.06.

Although this notice records that the same is being sent to the said MSK as well as to the Rajapur Gram Panchayat for being hung up on the notice board, there is no statement in the counter affidavit that such notice was duly hung up or was given wide publicity so as to attract maximum number of applications from eligible candidates.

On 17.05.06, a further resolution was adopted by* the Managing Committee of the said MSK whereby one Biswanath Sarkar was engaged as Samprasarak for Life Science group and the respondent No. 9 was appointed as Samprasarak for History group for the session 2006-07.

It also appears from the said affidavit that the Managing Committee of the said MSK had failed to submit functioning report in the year 2005-06 on time. Prayer to submit such functioning report beyond the specified period was not allowed by the concerned authority and as such the Managing Committee in its meeting dated 17.06.06 decided to treat the engagement of the said Nurul Islam and the respondent No. 8 as engagement for the first academic session 2006-07 with effect from 19.07.06.

The contents of the said affidavit appear to be similar to the contents of the vacating application filed by the respondent No. 7 (affirmed on 21-10-06).

Counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 9 however presents a different picture. According to him, the Managing Committee of the said MSK had issued a notice dated 10.04.04 inviting applications for filling up the post of Mukhya Siksha Samprasarak/Samprasarska and Sishu Siksha Samprasarak/Samprasarika from the permanent residents of Rajapur Gram Panchayat and nearby localities The last date for filing applications in terms of the recruitment notice was 15.04.04. The respondent No. 9 having filed an application for being considered for the post of Mukhya Samprasharak, the Managing Committee selected it and an appointment letter was issued on 24.04.04 asking him to join within 27.04.04 at a monthly remuneration of Rs. 3,000/-. The respondent No. 9 accepted the offer of appointment pursuant whereto an agreement was executed by and between him and the Managing Committee of the said MSK on 27.04.04 thereby appointing the respondent No. 9 as Mukhya Sarnprasarak on contract for one year i.e. from 27.04.04 and, 27.04.05. The respondent No. 9 having discharged his dun'' as Mukhya Sarnprasarak satisfactorily, his engagement was renewed for a further one year on 27.04.05 when an agreement was executed to be valid between 27.04.05 and 27.04.06. Again the engagement was renewed on 27.04.06 and he was appointed to discharge duty of Mukhya Sarnprasarak for a further period of one year till 27.04.07. It is to be noted that the respondent No. 9 does not admit in his affidavit that he had responded to the recruitment notice dated 08.05.06 and was appointed as Siksha Sarnprasarak for Life Science group, as has been asserted by the respondent No. 7 in his counter affidavit. It is also significant to note that the respondent No. 7 in his affidavit has not admitted engagement of the respondent No. 9 as Mukhya Sarnprasarak in the said MSK for the session 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07.

That the respondent No. 9 did not make correct statements on oath in his counter affidavit is reflected from the application for vacating interim order being CAN 3521 of 2007 filed an behalf of the respondents 8 and 9 (affirmed an 20-04-07). To bring his version in line with the version of the respondent No. 7, respondent No. 9 has turned volte-face and has stated in the application for vacating interim order that he was appointed by the said MSK in April, 2004 as Sarnprasarak in History group and, thereafter, such engagement has been renewed at the end of each academic session and upto 30.04.07, and further that he has discharged his duty without any break. This is in sharp contrast from his version in the counter affidavit to the effect that he was appointed as Mukhya Samprasharak. It is therefore clear that the respondent No. 9 has not been truthful in disclosing the real state of affairs.

The respondent No. 8 has not filed any counter affidavit to the writ petition. However, the application being CAN 3521 of 2007 has also been filed on his behalf. According to the contents of this application, the respondent No. 8 also appears to have been appointed as Siksha Samprasarak in Science group vide appointment letter dated 24.04.04 issued by the Secretary of the MSK. However, no agreement executed by and between the respondent No. 8 and the Managing Committee of the MSK has been annexed to the said application.

Why the respondent No. 7 has not disclosed the engagements given to respondents 8 and 9 in April, 2004 as Samprasarak and Mukhya Samprasarak respectively is not far to seek. They had been engaged in April, 2004 at a time when approval of the functioning of the MSK had not been obtained The respondent No. 7 in his wisdom thought it fit to suppress such facts. The cat came out of the bag when the respondent No. 9 in his counter affidavit (affirmed on 23.02.07) disclosed his engagement as Mukhya Samprasarak. Therefore the occasion arose to repair the damage and hence the application for vacating interim order was filed (affirmed on 20.04.07) which, instead of repairing the damage already caused, in effect caused further damage to the respective cases of the respondents 7, 8 and 9.

On the basis of the pleadings of the respondents 7, 8 and 9 and the applicable guidelines, this Court has arrived at the following findings :

1) In terms of the mode of selection laid down in the Memo dated 10.07.2003, Samprasarak/Samprasarikal Mukhya Samprasarak; Mukhya Samprasarika could be engaged only after a Madhyamik Siksha Kendra is approved by the competent authority. Wide publicity of such approval is to be given and thereafter applications from eligible candidates for engagement could be invited.

2) In April, 2004 the Managing Committee of the MSK engaged the respondent No. 9 as Mukhya Samprasarak and the respondent No. 8 as Siksha Samprasarak for Science group when the MSK was not approved by the State respondents.

3) For the post of Mukhiya Samprasarak only a retired Headmaster Headmistress or at least a retired teacher of a high/junior high school preferably with post-graduate/honours degree could be engaged.

4) The respondent No. 9 not being a reared Headmaster or at least a retired teacher of a High/Junior High School could not have been engaged as Mukhya Samprasarak and therefore the need to discontinue his service as Mukhya Samprasarak and to provide him with an engagement of Samprasarak, at any cost depriving other eligible candidates, arose. He was thus appointed in pursuance of the recruitment notice dated 08.05.06.

5) It is not disputed that the MSK had no approval prior to June. 2006 from the State authorities and that the first academic session of the said MSK is 2006-07. The respondent No. 7 also states in his counter affidavit that the appointment of the said Nurul Islam and the respondent No. 8, in terms of the resolution dated 17.06.06 of the Managing Committee, were treated as appointment for the first academic session 2006-07 with effect from 19.06.06. If that is so, i.e. 2006-07 is the first academic session, not more than two Samprasaraks could have been appointed during such session.

6) The appointment made by the Managing Committee pursuant to the recruitment notice dated 08.05.06 appointing the said Biswanath Sarkar and the respondent No. 9 as Samprasarak for Life Science and History groups respectively cannot thus be held to be a valid appointment in terms of Clause 19 of the revised guidelines which lays down that in the first year of functioning of a Madhyamik Siksha Kendra, there shall be two Samprasarak [(i) one for Language and Social Science and (ii) the other for Science and Mathematics] and in its second year of functioning there shall be two separate Samprasaraks [(i) one for History and Geography including Social Science and (ii) the other for Life Science] thereby making it possible for four Samprasaraks to function in the second year of a Madhyamik Siksha Kendra. It cannot be disputed that the respondent no 9 was engaged either as the third or the fourth Samprasarak in the approved first year of functioning of the said MSK, i.e. 2006-07 and, therefore, the entire process of his selection and consequent appointment stands vitiated. The appointment of the respondent No. 8 was also absolutely illegal as apart from the fact that in 2004 the said MSK did not have the approval of the State authorities, the Managing Committee of the said MSK could not have appointed respondent No. 8 even in August, 2005 in view of the revised guidelines since he was not at least 40 years old. The applicable guidelines provide for reduction of age to 35 years provided the State Government grants such relaxation an receipt of specific proposal. Without there being a specific proposal and in the absence of any relaxation granted by the State Government, only with the view to accommodate the respondent No. 8, the recruitment notice dated 05-08-05 was issued whereby the age for making an application in response thereto was fixed as 35-. Not only that, the residence requirement was also changed by the Managing Committee of the said MSK. Instead of inviting applications from the permanent residents of Rajapur Gram Panchayat, applications were invited from those of Katlamari II Gram Panchayat. In terms of the applicable guidelines, a Samprasarak/Samprasanka must be the resident of the Gram Panchayat where the Sishu Kendra is located. However, if qualified persons are not available in the same Gram Panchayat, then any person residing in the adjoining Gram Panchayats/ Municipalities having required qualification could also be engaged. In the present case it would be found that the notice dated 25.07.05 was not given due publicity and being confined only to seeking applications from the permanent residents of Rajapur Gram Panchayat, with the further stipulation that an applicant must be aged more than 40 years, respondent No. 8 could not have offer his candidature not having the requisite qualifications. Therefore, the notice dated 05.08.05 was issued whereby residents of Katlamari II Gram Panchayat, aged more than 35 years, were invited to make applications so as to give scope to the respondent No. 8 to make an application. Respondent No. 8 was the sole candidate and he came to be appointed. Nothing can be more arbitrary than this.

7) This Court is not satisfied that the recruitment notice dated 25.07.05 was given due publicity. Pursuant to this notice, the said Nurul Islam has been appointed. However, he is not a party to this petition. Therefore, his engagement cannot be touched by this Court. For similar reason, the engagement of the said Biswanath Sarkar cannot also be touched by this Court.

So far as the respondents 8 and 9 are concerned, this Court is of the firm and clear view that their engagements cannot be upheld. Respondent No. 8 does not satisfy the eligibility criterion for engagement, being 36 years of age and no relaxation has been given by the Government on receipt of any specific proposal to reduce the minimum age for his engagement as Samprasarak. His engagement is absolutely illegal and thus stands quashed.

The plea of respondent No. 9 that he was appointed as Mukhya Samprasarak in 2004 and that he has been discharging his duty as such is also of no avail in view of the fact that he does not have the essential qualification for engagement as Mukhya Samprasarak. That apart, the said MSK has not supported this plea. Therefore, question of granting any approval by the concerned authorities to his engagement as Mukhya Samprasarak does not arise.

Engagement of respondent No. 9 as Siksha Samprasarak for reasons discussed above is also held to be invalid. His engagement stands quashed

This Court is conscious of the fact that the grievance of the petitioners is that the applicable guidelines have been breached while selecting the respondents 8 and 9 but those guidelines do not have the force of a statute. However, since the guidelines have been framed by the State Government for the purpose of ensuring transparency and fair play, it was the obligation of the Managing Committee of the said MSK to comply with the said guidelines to obviate any charge of arbitrariness and favouritism. This Court holds so on the authority of the decision of the Apex Court in B. S. Minhas vs. Indian Statistical Institute reported in AIR 1984 SC 363. The facts which have surfaced from the pleadings of the respondents 7, 8 and 9 manifest gross arbitrariness and favouritism which has been perpetrated by the said MSK to carve out distinct benefits in favour of the respondents 8 and 9 to the detriment and prejudice of other eligible candidates who did not have the occasion to apply for the post of Samprasarak in the said MSK for want of due publicity of its approval and invitation to apply. Having regard to the fact that the State Government would bear the burden of remuneration to be paid to the Samprasaraks, the process adopted is clearly in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and therefore cannot stand for a moment. The State respondents are directed to ensure that the said MSK complies with the applicable guidelines in letter and spirit while engaging candidates for filling up the posts of Samprasarak/Mukhiya Samprasarak.

A point had been raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents 7. 8 and 9 that the petitioners did not apply for the post. It would appear from the recruitment notices that for one post i.e. Samprasarak in History group only seven days time was given for making applications whereas for the post of Samprasarak in Mathematics and Physical Science group although no last date for submitting applications was mentioned, a decision to appoint the respondent No. 8 was taken within 10 days from date of such notice. Naturally, intending candidates were not given sufficient time to offer their candidature. Law has been settled by the Apex Court in its decision in R. D. Shetty vs. International Airport Authority, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1628 that a non-applicant does have the locus standi to challenge a selection process if he was unable to participate therein because of any wrong action of the selectors. Illegality, arbitrariness and favouritism being writ large on the actions of the Managing Committee of the said MSK, this Court cannot but overrule the objection raised by learned Counsel regarding the petitioners'' locus standi.

The writ petition stands allowed. The connected applications, being CAN 3521 of 2007 and CAN 8600 of 2006, stand disposed of in view of this judgment and order.

It shall be open to the State respondents to initiate fresh process to fill up the vacant pots of Samprasarak in accordance with law.

This Court considers it to be a fit case for imposition of costs. The Managing Committee of the said MSK represented by the respondent No. 7 shall bear the costs of this petition assessed at 200 Gms. to be paid to the petitioners in equal shares. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be furnished to the applicant within 3 days from date of putting in requisites therefore.