SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S. Rajendra Babu and K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 1715 /2001( arising out of SLP(C) 4986/2000 ). D/d. 2.3.2001.

Champa Santra - Appellant

Versus

Chinta Santra (Porel) & Ors. - Respondents

Service Labour Law - Selection - Respondent questioning the appointment of appellant on the ground that the certificate produced by her as forged one and her name was not sponsored in terms of directions issued by Director of School Education - Single Judge directing the concerned authorities to look into the matter - Division Bench interfering the order of Single Judge - Held, not valid - Whether there was compliance with the relevant rule or not could have been looked into by authorities and appropriate decision would have been taken Order of Division Bench set aside and that of Single Judge restored.

[Paras 2 and 3]

Cases Referred :-

Muktipada Maity v. State of West Bengal & Ors, MAT 1198/98.

ORDER

S. Rajendra Babu, J. - Leave granted.

2. Certain selections had been made to the posts of Class IV staff in Goghat Bhagabati Balika Vidyalaya. A writ petition was filed contending that the appellant's name had not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange when the vacancy was notified. A Learned Single Judge of the High Court directed the school authority to allow the said appellant to appear at the interview and also interviewed subsequently and thereafter she had been selected and was given appointment as Group 'D' staff by the school authorities.

3. The first respondent questioned the appointment on the ground that the certificate produced by the appellant was a forged one and her name had not been sponsored in terms of the directions issued by the Director of School Education. The learned Single Judge examined the matter and directed that the representation made by the first respondent should be examined and appropriate findings given thereto and her empanelment would depend upon the decision on the said representation. At the time of disposal of the said representation the authorities will have to taken into consideration the decision rendered in MAT 1198/98 ( Muktipada Maity v. State of West Bengal & Ors) which shall be made available to the concerned authority.

4. On appeal against that order the Division Bench took exception to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge When the authorities had been directed to look into the matter to consider the representation made on both these aspects that the appellant had produced a forged certificate and her name ought not to have been appropriately sponsored in terms of the directions of the Director of School Education. While doing so, the learned Single Judge had directed to take into consideration the effect of the order made by the High court we fail to understand as to how the Division Bench could have interfered with that order. Whether there was compliance with the relevant rules or not could have been look into by the authorities and appropriate decision could have been made on the representation made by the parties. We therefore set aside the the order made by the Division Bench of the High Court and restore that of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

.