Santwana Chakraborty Vs. the State of West Bengal and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
writ petition is filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying to issue a writ of mandamus, directing respondents to consider the applications of the petitioner dated 6.1.2011 in nos.10274 and 10220 for giving water connection and sewerage connections to the house of the petitioner in the light of the notice dated 25.2.2011 given by counsel to the second and the third respondents.1. the petitioner in this art.226 petition dated october 7, 2002 is questioning two memos dated december 2, 1997 (at p.32) and september 19, 2002 (at p.47) both issued by the district inspector of schools (se), north 24 parganas. 2. the petitioner was voluntarily doing the work of group-d staff in sukchar satadal balika vidyayatan from june 21, 1995. for filling the vacancy for a group-d post occurring in 1996 the school authority took steps according to the recruitment rules. names of eligible candidates were requisitioned from the employment exchange that sponsored names, the petitioner was not one of them. she moved w.p. no. 12546 (w) 1997 before this court under art.226 alleging that the school authority was not inclined to permit her to participate in the selection process. 3. according to the recruitment rules, only those persons whose names were sponsored by the employment exchange were entitled to participate in the selection process. however, by an order dated july 15, 1997 w.p. no. 12546 (w) of 1997 was disposed of directing the school authority to permit the petitioner to participate in the selection process with the candidates whose names were sponsored by the employment exchange subject to the condition that the petitioner must be within the prescribed age limit. 4. though the petitioner was overage, the school authority permitted her to participate in the selection process and she topped the list of select candidates prepared by the selection committee. after accepting the list the managing committee of the school forwarded it to the district inspector of schools (in short dis) for approval required under the rules. by the decision dated december 2, 1997 the dis directed the school authority to recast the list on the grounds that the petitioner, the first candidate therein, was overage at the relevant date. the petitioner submitted a legal notice dated december 22, 1997 (at p.33) requesting the dis to withdraw his order dated december 2, 1997 on the grounds that though she was overage, she was allowed to participate in the selection process as a candidate. then alleging non-consideration of her request she moved w.p. no. 1336 (w) of 1998. by an order dated september 25, 2000 the petition was disposed of. 25. the order dated september 25, 2000 (at p.37) is quote below: the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.3, district inspector of schools (secondary education), 24 parganas (north) be directed to treat copy of the writ application as representation of the petitioner consider and dispose of the same by a reasoned order. under the circumstances, i dispose of the present writ application by the following order. the respondent no.3 is directed to treat a copy of the writ application as the representation of the petitioner consider and dispose of the same by a reasoned order within 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order. a copy of the reasoned order should be served upon the petitioner within 2 weeks from the date of making thereof. the learned advocate for the petitioner is permitted to take down the gist of the order for communication and the respondent no.3 is directed to act on such communication. the gist of the order and the copy of the writ application should be served upon the respondent no.3 within two weeks from today. in these terms, the writ application is disposed of. if xerox certified copy of this order is applied for, that should be made available to the learned advocate/s for the party/parties as quickly as possible. 6. in compliance with the order dated september 25, 2000 the dis gave a decision (at p.39), a copy whereof was forwarded to the petitioner by a memo dated december 12, 2000. the dis said that since he did not possess any power to condone the overage the case might be forwarded to the director of school education (in short dse). 7. the memo dated september 19, 2002 was issued by the dis informing the petitioner that by a letter dated july 30, 2002 the dse had informed that the school education department was not competent to change the upper age limit or to relax the condition. under the circumstances, the petitioner brought this petition. 8. relying on the supreme court decision in dr. a.k. jain & ors. v. union of india & ors., 1987 (supp) scc 497 and the division bench decision in kalyan deb v. director of school education & ors., 95 cwn 330, mr banerji, counsel for the petitioner, has argued that in view of the order of this court in w.p. no. 1336 (w) of 1998, r.28(4) of the management of recognised non-government institutions (aided and unaided) rules, 1969 and the high qualification possessed by the petitioner, the respondents ought to have relaxed the age limit for validating the petitioners participation in the selection process. 9. it is evident from the order of this court dated september 25, 2000 that thereby nothing was decided by the court. the ex parte final order at the admission stage of the case deposing of the petition was made in obvious ignorance of the previous binding order of this court dated july 15, 1997 in w.p. no. 12546 (w) of 1997 and the decision of the dis dated december 2, 1997 that was in force. 10. the question of age relaxation could, if at all, be an issue in an appeal from the single bench order dated july 15, 1997, because at the dates the permission was granted by the dis to the school authority to fill the vacancy and the school authority requisitioned names of eligible candidates from the employment exchange (both the things done in compliance with the recruitment rules), the petitioner was admittedly overage for the post. 11. this court directed the school authority to permit her to participate in the process only if she was within the prescribed age limit. she accepted the order. in terms of the order she was not entitled to participate in the process as 3 a candidate. hence the school permitted her to participate in the selection process in clear contravention of the order. 12. therefore, noone could validate it and it could not give her any right to claim the benefit of age relaxation. 13. by the order dated september 25, 2000 in her second art.226 petition this court did not direct the respondents to consider the question of age relaxation. as a matter of fact, in the face of the order dated july 15, 1997 such an order could not be passed by this court. i am, therefore, of the view that there is no scope for making any order directing any authority to consider the question of giving the petitioner age relaxation benefit for the post. the provisions of the rules and the decisions relied on have no manner of application to case. 14. for these reasons, the petition is dismissed. 15. no costs. certified xerox.

Judgment:
1. The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated October 7, 2002 is questioning two memos dated December 2, 1997 (at p.32) and September 19, 2002 (at p.47) both issued by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), North 24 Parganas.

2. The petitioner was voluntarily doing the work of Group-D staff in Sukchar Satadal Balika Vidyayatan from June 21, 1995. For filling the vacancy for a Group-D post occurring in 1996 the school authority took steps according to the recruitment rules. Names of eligible candidates were requisitioned from the employment exchange that sponsored names, the petitioner was not one of them. She moved W.P. No. 12546 (W) 1997 before this Court under art.226 alleging that the school authority was not inclined to permit her to participate in the selection process.

3. According to the recruitment rules, only those persons whose names were sponsored by the employment exchange were entitled to participate in the selection process. However, by an order dated July 15, 1997 W.P. No. 12546 (W) of 1997 was disposed of directing the school authority to permit the petitioner to participate in the selection process with the candidates whose names were sponsored by the employment exchange subject to the condition that the petitioner must be within the prescribed age limit.

4. Though the petitioner was overage, the school authority permitted her to participate in the selection process and she topped the list of select candidates prepared by the selection committee. After accepting the list the managing committee of the school forwarded it to the District Inspector of Schools (in short DIS) for approval required under the rules. By the decision dated December 2, 1997 the DIS directed the school authority to recast the list on the grounds that the petitioner, the first candidate therein, was overage at the relevant date. The petitioner submitted a legal notice dated December 22, 1997 (at p.33) requesting the DIS to withdraw his order dated December 2, 1997 on the grounds that though she was overage, she was allowed to participate in the selection process as a candidate. Then alleging non-consideration of her request she moved W.P. No. 1336 (W) of 1998. By an order dated September 25, 2000 the petition was disposed of. 2

5. The order dated September 25, 2000 (at p.37) is quote below:

The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.3, District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), 24 Parganas (North) be directed to treat copy of the writ application as representation of the petitioner consider and dispose of the same by a reasoned order.

Under the circumstances, I dispose of the present writ application by the following order. The respondent no.3 is directed to treat a copy of the writ application as the representation of the petitioner consider and dispose of the same by a reasoned order within 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order. A copy of the reasoned order should be served upon the petitioner within 2 weeks from the date of making thereof. The learned advocate for the petitioner is permitted to take down the gist of the order for communication and the respondent no.3 is directed to act on such communication. The gist of the order and the copy of the writ application should be served upon the respondent no.3 within two weeks from today. In these terms, the writ application is disposed of. If xerox certified copy of this order is applied for, that should be made available to the learned advocate/s for the party/parties as quickly as possible.

6. In compliance with the order dated September 25, 2000 the DIS gave a decision (at p.39), a copy whereof was forwarded to the petitioner by a memo dated December 12, 2000. The DIS said that since he did not possess any power to condone the overage the case might be forwarded to the Director of School Education (in short DSE).

7. The memo dated September 19, 2002 was issued by the DIS informing the petitioner that by a letter dated July 30, 2002 the DSE had informed that the School Education Department was not competent to change the upper age limit or to relax the condition. Under the circumstances, the petitioner brought this petition.

8. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Dr. A.K. Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1987 (Supp) SCC 497 and the Division Bench decision in Kalyan Deb v. Director of School Education & Ors., 95 CWN 330, Mr Banerji, counsel for the petitioner, has argued that in view of the order of this Court in W.P. No. 1336 (W) of 1998, r.28(4) of the Management of Recognised Non-Government Institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969 and the high qualification possessed by the petitioner, the respondents ought to have relaxed the age limit for validating the petitioners participation in the selection process.

9. It is evident from the order of this Court dated September 25, 2000 that thereby nothing was decided by the Court. The ex parte final order at the admission stage of the case deposing of the petition was made in obvious ignorance of the previous binding order of this Court dated July 15, 1997 in W.P. No. 12546 (W) of 1997 and the decision of the DIS dated December 2, 1997 that was in force.

10. The question of age relaxation could, if at all, be an issue in an appeal from the Single Bench order dated July 15, 1997, because at the dates the permission was granted by the DIS to the school authority to fill the vacancy and the school authority requisitioned names of eligible candidates from the employment exchange (both the things done in compliance with the recruitment rules), the petitioner was admittedly overage for the post.

11. This Court directed the school authority to permit her to participate in the process only if she was within the prescribed age limit. She accepted the order. In terms of the order she was not entitled to participate in the process as 3 a candidate. Hence the school permitted her to participate in the selection process in clear contravention of the order.

12. Therefore, noone could validate it and it could not give her any right to claim the benefit of age relaxation.

13. By the order dated September 25, 2000 in her second art.226 petition this Court did not direct the respondents to consider the question of age relaxation. As a matter of fact, in the face of the order dated July 15, 1997 such an order could not be passed by this Court. I am, therefore, of the view that there is no scope for making any order directing any authority to consider the question of giving the petitioner age relaxation benefit for the post. The provisions of the rules and the decisions relied on have no manner of application to case.

14. For these reasons, the petition is dismissed.

15. No costs. Certified xerox.