Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sujit Kumar Ghosh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 July, 2011
Author: Aniruddha Bose
Bench: Aniruddha Bose
1 08/7/2011
ARDR W.P. No. 14337 (W) of 2005 (CAN 5209 of 2011) Sujit Kumar Ghosh & Ors.
Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Kaushik Chanda, Mr. Amal Ch. Das, Ms. Debamitra Bhawadwaj, Ms. Sumitra Das.
...for the Petitioner.
The writ petitioners are all aspirants for the posts of Security Guards in the Viswa Bharati University. They had participated in the selection process initiated by an advertisement termed as local notification no. 2/2001. It is pleaded in the petition that a panel had been prepared on the basis of such selection process on March 29, 2002, but no appointment has been given. The prayer of the petitioners is for a direction on the university authorities to complete the selection process and give appointment to the selected candidates.
The reason for stalling of the selection process appears to be a circular issued by the University Grants Commission being C.O. No.F.-1/57/2001 (CPP-II) dated September 6, 2002. This Memorandum issued by the University Grants 2 Commission contemplates reduction in the teaching and non- teaching staff ratio and to achieve such objective it has been stipulated:-
"* * * *
(iv) The Work related to transportation, cleanliness and security shall be assigned to a private agency instead of engaging regular staff for this purpose." Appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Chanda, learned counsel submitted that the said circular came into existence subsequent to completion of selection process and hence a right has accrued to the candidates empanelled for being considered in the post in accordance with the Rule which prevailed at the time the selection process was undertaken.
I accept submission of Mr. Chanda as a proposition of law that vacancies to particular posts should be filled up as per the regulations prevailing at the point of time when such vacancies accrued. In the present case however, University Grants Commission has practically issued a blanket prohibition on regular appointment to the posts of Security Guards, which binds the University. Since regular appointment to these posts have been stopped altogether, the selection process in such an event stands automatically invalidated, as 3 for the posts for which selection process had commenced stands, in substance, abolished.
Argument of Mr. Chanda, on this ground, was that there is no change so far as vacancies are concerned, but the mode of recruitment to these vacancies has been altered to the detriment of the petitioners.
In my opinion, the character of the vacancies have also changed and these posts have been divested of their permanent character, and the posts of permanent character stand abolished, as I have observed in the earlier part of this order, to be filled up through contractual appointment only. The authorities on such issue have wide discretion and unless a clear cut case is made out that the decision of the authorities are unreasonable or irrational the Writ Court would not interfere in such matters. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct the authorities as to which posts should be filled up through permanent appointment and which posts shall be reserved for contractual appointment.
In the light of these facts, I do not find the petitioners can be granted the relief they have prayed for. Empanelled candidates do not acquire any vested right to be appointed in 4 the post for which they are empanelled. The Writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
The connected application being CAN 5209 of 2011 is for expedite hearing of this Writ petition. The said application also stands disposed of in view of this judgment.
(Aniruddha Bose, J.)