Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Md. Munazir Adil & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 22 December, 2020
Author: Amrita Sinha
Bench: Amrita Sinha
22.12.2020
Ct. No. 24
Item No. 23
pk.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
WPA No. 9548 of 2020
Md. Munazir Adil & Anr.
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Anjan Bhattacharjee,
Md. Nauroz Rahber for the petitioners
Mr. Himadri Sekhar Chakraborty,
Ms. Debdooti Dutta for the State
Two writ petitioners have filed the instant writ
petition by depositing only one court fee.
The learned Advocate-on-Record of the petitioner is
directed to deposit the deficit court fees in course of
tomorrow. In default, the order passed herein shall be
restricted only in respect of the petitioner no. 1 and the
writ petition shall be deemed to be dismissed in respect
of the other.
The petitioners participated in the recruitment
process for the post of Gram Panchayet Karmee under
the Exempted Category. According to the petitioners they
performed petty well in the written examination and the
viva-voce, but surprisingly, their names were not
included in the final merit list.
The petitioners have filed the instant writ application
on the allegation that the candidates, who have been
empanelled in the final merit list under the Exempted
2
Category do not possess the requisite certificate relating
to their exempted category.
The exact averment that has been made by the
petitioners in paragraph 12 of the writ petition is as
follows:-
"The petitioners also came to know from reliable
sources that name of those candidates were also
impleaded in the final panel who does not possess
Exempted Category Certificate".
The aforesaid averment does not mention the
particulars of the candidates, who do not possess the
Exempted Category Certificate. The submission is
absolutely vague and no writ of mandamus can be issued
on such type of averments.
The petitioners lastly pray for consideration of their
representation which they have filed before the authority
highlighting their grievance.
The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
State respondent upon instruction submits that the
petitioners did not obtain the qualifying marks necessary for empanelment in the list.
I am not convinced with the argument of the petitioners and, accordingly, the prayer for consideration also cannot be granted in the facts and circumstances of this case. The writ petition is a speculative one devoid of merits and the same stands dismissed. 3 The authority concerned will proceed with the recruitment process strictly in accordance with law. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
(Amrita Sinha, J.)