Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sunil Chandra Mahata vs West Bengal Police Recruitment Board ... on 6 May, 2013
Author: Nishita Mhatre
Bench: Nishita Mhatre
1
31 06.05.13
rp Ct. No.17 W.P.S.T. No.97 of 2013
In the matter of: Sunil Chandra Mahata
- Petitioner
Vs.
West Bengal Police Recruitment Board and Others
- Respondents
Mr. Sahasrangshu Bhattacharjee Mr. Suchindram Bhattacharjee ... for the Petitioner Mr. Sadhan Roy Chowdhury Mr. Moloy Roy ... for the Respondents The petition has been filed against the judgment and order of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in OA-1165 of 2012. The Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application of the Petitioner.
The Petitioner had applied for appointment as a Junior Constable with the West Bengal Police. It appears that because of the criminal case pending against him his candidature was not accepted. The Tribunal has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Sk. Nazrul Islam, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 184. In that case the Division Bench of this Court had directed that the candidate should be appointed to the post of constable and that the appointment would abide by the final decision of the pending criminal case. Criticising this view of the High Court the Supreme Court observed as follows:
"5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we fail to appreciate how when a criminal case under Sections 148/323/380/427/596 IPC, against the respondent was pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia, Howrah, any mandamus could have been issued by the High Court to the authorities to appoint the respondent as a constable. Surely, the 2 authorities entrusted with the responsibility of appointing constables were under duty to verify the antecedents of a candidate to find out whether he is suitable for the post of constable and so long as the candidate has not been acquitted in the criminal case of the charges under Sections 148/323/380/427/596 IPC, he cannot possibly be held to be suitable for appointment to the post of constable."
We do not, therefore, find any error, much less an error apparent on the face of the record in the order of the Tribunal.
It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that some relief should be given to the Petitioner by directing that the Petitioner should be appointed after the criminal case pending against his has been decided. We are afraid that such orders cannot be passed. The Petitioner is facing a criminal trial. We cannot presume that he would be acquitted in that case. Even if he is acquitted we cannot presume today that he would not be involved in any other criminal case or that he was disqualified for any other reason by the time he has to be appointed which would be an impediment in his recruitment.
However, after acquittal in case the recruitment process is commenced the Petitioner would be able to apply for recruitment as a Police Constable and the fact that he had applied earlier would not debar him from being considered for appointment.
The petition is dismissed.
(Nishita Mhatre, J.) 3 (Anindita Roy Saraswati, J.)