Arpita Pramanik vs Pulak Tung & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 6579 Cal

27.09.2023
 SL No.33
Court No.8
    (gc)




                MAT 1507 of 2023
                 CAN 1 of 2023
                 CAN 2 of 2023
                 CAN 3 of 2023

                 Arpita Pramanik
                        Vs.
                Pulak Tung & Ors.

                  Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharyya
                                      ...for the Appellant.

                  Mr. Ekramul Bari,
                  Sk. Imtiaj Uddin
                                 ...for the Writ Petitioner/
                                        Respondent No.1.

Sk. Md. Galib, ...for the State Respondents.

1. The appellant is the second empanelled

candidate. However, the entire panel was

quashed on the ground that the

recruitment procedure followed in the

process of filling up six vacant posts of

Ananda Bhavan Deaf and Blind School,

Jagatpur, Uluberia, Howrah suffered from

gross violations of Government rules.

2. The applicant submits that while she was

waiting for a fresh recruitment process to

be initiated, she had come across judgment

dated 3rd February, 2023 by which Pulak

Tung was given the appointment. It is

submitted that the said appointment is

illegal and the applicant has a better

qualification than the writ petitioner.

3. Md. Galib, learned Counsel representing

the State respondents submits that the

State respondents have also filed an appeal

being MAT 646 of 2023. He also submits

that since there are gross violations of the

recruitment process, the order passed by

the learned Single Judge is not

sustainable.

4. The learned Counsel for the writ

petitioner/respondent no.1 submits that,

however, the writ petitioner has been

appointed and he is presently discharging

his duties as Assistant Teacher.

5. Be that as it may, it appears that the State

has preferred an appeal in which it has

been categorically stated that the learned

Single Judge has failed to appreciate the

gross violations of the Government orders.

6. In view of the fact that if the recruitment

process is found to be in violation of the

recruitment rules, the entire recruitment

process is then vitiated.

7. In view of the fact that if the panel survives

and Arpita Pramanik is found to be more

eligible, we permit the application for leave

to prefer appeal.

8. Accordingly, the application for leave to

prefer appeal being CAN 1 of 2023 is

allowed and disposed of.

9. There is a delay of 185 days in preferring

the appeal. The petitioner is not a party to

the writ proceeding. The petitioner has

stated that she became aware of the order

dated 7th July, 2023 on the basis of an

application filed under the R.T.I.

10. In view of the aforesaid fact, we condone

the delay of 185 days in preferring the

memorandum of appeal.

11. Accordingly, the application for

condonation of delay being CAN 2 of 2023

is allowed and disposed of.

12. The application being CAN 3 of 2023 in

MAT 1507 of 2023 along with MAT 646 of

2023 shall be listed on 3rd October, 2023.

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