VIJOY KUMAR PANDEY versus ARVIND KUMAR RAI & ORS.

VIJOY KUMAR PANDEY versus ARVIND KUMAR RAI & ORS.

No candidate can claim recommendation or appointment to the post of Headmaster without the preparation and publication of a panel as mandated by statutory regulations. Since no panel was prepared or published, the respondent’s claim to appointment is untenable, and the Division Bench’s direction was unsustainable.

Parties
Appellant: Vijoy Kumar Pandey; Respondent No.1: Arvind Kumar Rai; Respondent: School Service Commission, West Bengal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Selection, School Service Commission, Appointment of Headmaster, Statutory Regulations, Preparation and Publication of Panel, Mandamus
Service Law Selection School Service Commission Appointment of Headmaster Statutory Regulations Preparation and Publication of Panel Mandamus

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vijoy Kumar Pandey

Appellant

Arvind Kumar Rai

Respondent No.1

School Service Commission, West Bengal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a panel of candidates for the post of Headmaster was prepared and published by the School Service Commission as per statutory regulations
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a published panel entitles any candidate to appointment or mandamus
  3. 3 Whether the respondent’s appointment as Headmaster is legally tenable

Ratio Decidendi

No candidate can claim recommendation or appointment to the post of Headmaster without the preparation and publication of a panel as mandated by statutory regulations. Since no panel was prepared or published, the respondent’s claim to appointment is untenable, and the Division Bench’s direction was unsustainable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of Division Bench set aside
  • Order of Single Judge Dipankar Datta, J. dated 27th July, 2009 affirmed