Amal Kumar Ghosh & Ors vs The District Primary School ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5627 Cal

  28.08.2023
SL No.14 wt 15
  Court No.8
    (gc)


                             MAT 775 of 2012
                 CAN 1 of 2012 (Old No: CAN 5271 of 2012)
                 CAN 2 of 2012 (Old No: CAN 5272 of 2012)

                        Amal Kumar Ghosh & Ors.
                                    Vs.
                   The District Primary School Council,
                              Hooghly & Ors.

                                   With

                             FMA 979 of 2012
                 CAN 1 of 2012 (Old No: CAN 1058 of 2012)

                       Tarun Kumar Chinya & Ors.
                                    Vs.
                   The District Primary School Council,
                              Hooghly & Ors.

                              Mr. G.F. Hossain,
                              Ms. Varsha Roy,
                              Mr. Debasish De Sarkar,
                              Ms. Priyanka Mondal,
                                                  ...for the Appellants
                                                 In FMA 979 of 2012.
                              Mr. Dipankar Mandal,
                              Mr. Abdul Aziz Mondal,
                                         ... For the Respondent No.15

In MAT 775 of 2012.

Re: CAN 1 of 2012 (Old No: CAN 5271 of 2012) In MAT 775 of 2012

1. Sufficient cause being shown for not being

able to prefer the appeal within the period

of limitation. The delay of 247 days in

preferring the memorandum of appeal is

condoned.

2. Accordingly, the application for

condonation of delay is allowed and

disposed of.

Re: MAT 775 of 2012 CAN 2 of 2012 (Old No: CAN 5272 of 2012) With FMA 979 of 2012 CAN 1 of 2012 (Old No: CAN 1058 of 2012)

3. The appellants in MAT 775 of 2012 are not

represented, nor any accommodation is

prayed for on their behalf.

4. However, the appellants in FMA 979 of

2012 are represented.

5. Mr. Dipankar Mandal, learned Counsel is

representing the respondent No.15 in MAT

775 of 2012.

6. The notice appears to have not been served

upon Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick,

learned A.G.P.

7. We have read the judgment passed by the

learned Single Judge carefully. It appears

that the writ petitioners participated in the

recruitment process initiated by the

District Primary School Council, Hooghly

who were declared as unsuccessful

candidates. After having participated in

the said process, they have challenged the

recruitment process on ground of

arbitrariness and mala fide. The writ

petitioners did not challenge the

recruitment process at the initial stage and

they have challenged the same after they

were unsuccessful.

8. Under such circumstances, we do not find

any reason to interfere with the order

passed by the learned Single Judge.

9. Accordingly, both the appeals along with

the connected applications stand

dismissed.

10. However, there shall be no order as to

costs.

11. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this

order, if applied for, be given to the parties

on usual undertaking.

(Uday Kumar, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)