Adjudication Of Factual Disputes Requires A Full-Fledged Trial, Not Possible Through Exchange Of Affidavits In Writ Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Writ Petition For Para Teacher Appointment
In a significant judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya of the Calcutta High Court, the court has dismissed a writ petition involving complex factual disputes regarding the appointment of a para teacher in Geography. The petitioner, Abdulla Molla, had sought a writ of mandamus directing the approval of his selection for the post at Chouhata Adarsha Vidyapith and preventing the appointment of other candidates.
Legal Point of the Judgment:
The court’s decision primarily hinged on the judicial review’s inability to resolve substantial factual disputes through a writ petition, particularly concerning the selection and interview processes.
Facts and Issues:
Abdulla Molla claimed he applied and was interviewed for the position of additional para teacher following a notice by Chouhata Adarsha Vidyapith dated 10.07.2004. He argued that he performed excellently and was eligible for the appointment. Contrarily, the respondents contended that the positions were reserved for female candidates and denied that Molla was interviewed. Discrepancies arose over the validity and content of notices and documents presented by both parties, creating significant factual conflicts.
Court’s Assessment:
Disputed Notices and Documentation: The court noted contradictions between the notices in Bengali and English regarding the reservation of posts for female candidates.
Existence of Interview Panel: It was contended that no panel for Geography was ever received from the school, contrary to the petitioner’s claims supported by documents purportedly showing his top placement in the interview.
Appointment of Geography Expert: The petitioner produced a document stating he was interviewed by an expert in Geography, which the respondents disputed, adding another layer to the factual controversies.
Timing and Disclosure of Documents: The court expressed concerns over the delayed disclosure of key documents by the petitioner, which complicated the factual matrix further.
The court concluded that such layered factual disputes required thorough trial and examination rather than resolution via affidavits in writ proceedings.
Decision: Justice Bhattacharyya ruled that the complexities involved necessitated a full-fledged trial, dismissing the writ petition and allowing the petitioner to seek relief through an appropriate forum without any order as to costs.
Date of Decision: 1st May 2024
Abdulla Molla vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
