AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Tapabrata Chakraborty, JÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
Records reveal that the writ petition was preferred primarily praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondents to issue admit cards in
favour of the petitioners to appear in the written examination for appointment to the posts of assistant teachers in primary schools under District
Primary School Council, North 24-Parganas (in short, the said Council). On 29th January, 2010, an interim order was passed by this Court directing the
Council to permit the petitioners to participate in the written examination on 14th February, 2010 subject to the condition that the petitioners shall report
before the Chairman of the Council by 5th February, 2010 with all other credentials for the purpose of issuance of admit cards in their favour.
Mr. Mondal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the said order dated 29th January, 2010, the petitioners were
allowed to participate in the written examination on 14th February, 2010. Thereafter, no further steps were taken by the Council. As the marks
obtained by the petitioners were not disclosed by the authorities, they submitted applications under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Stating such facts, the petitioners have preferred an application for amendment of the writ petition for incorporation of a prayer towards issuance of
necessary direction upon the respondents to issue appointment letters in favour of the petitioners.
Mr. Vaisya, learned advocate appearing for the Council submits that the petitioners did not secure appropriate marks to come within the zone of
consideration.
Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the State denies and disputes the contention of the petitioners.
The scope and ambit of the writ petition filed on 20th January, 2010 is restricted to the alleged inaction on the part of the respondents towards issuance
of admit cards.
By an amendment application, filed about seven years after filing of the writ petition, such ambit cannot be enlarged.
In view thereof, the application for amendment being CAN No.8192 of 2017 is dismissed.
The petitioners were issued the admit cards and allowed to participate in the written examination on 14th February, 2010. In view thereof, as the
primary relief has already been granted, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is a dismissed.
It is, however, made clear that the dismissal of the writ petition will not prevent the petitioners from availing the remedies, as provided under the Right
to Information Act, 2005.
Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible.