Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Writ Petition vs Unknown on 18 April, 2012
Author: Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari
Bench: Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari
1
507 18.04.12.
pcn W. P. No.14593(W) of 2010.
Mr. A. P. Lahiri,
Mr. Swapan Banerjee,
Mr. Kunal Ganguly..
... for the Petitioners.
Mr. SK. Md. Galib.
... for the State.
In this writ petition, the writ petitioners have
questioned the order of District Magistrate, Purba
Medinipore, being the Chairman of District Level
Selection Committee, Purba Medinipore wherein the
claim of the writ petitioners for regularisation of their
service as Watcher was rejected after consideration of
their case.
Mr. Lahiri, learned Counsel appearing in support
of the writ petitioners submits that the first writ petition
being W. P. No.3119 (W) of 1999 was moved bythe
petitioners and by and under order dated 19th April,
1999, although it was held that regularisation of the
service of the petitioners cannot be passed since this
appointment, in His Lordship's opinion, is not regular
appointment and it is settled law that no appointment
either by way of initial or by way of absorption can be
done de hors the Recruitment Rules, but in that order
the concerned respondents were directed to allow the
petitioners to take part in the interview along with other eligible candidates in the selection process condoning their age bar even if their names are not sponsored by the Employment Exchange.
Mr. Lahiri submits that their clients appeared in the interview along with others but could not be successful and, therefore, they were denied regular appointment. Mr. Lahiri submits that a second writ application was moved before the Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Court has passed an order directing the District Level Selection Committee to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with Notification, Intimation and Corrigendum dated 8th October, 2003 and 13th July, 2004.
Mr. Lahiri submits that the concerned Chairman considered the case of the writ petitioners but erroneously refused to regularisation of the petitioners on the basis of a Circular which was not directed to be considered. He referred last portion of the order where 2 the date of Circular was mentioned as 8th October, 2009. He submits that a fresh direction to be given to the concerned District Magistrate to reconsider the case of the writ petitioners for regularisation on the basis of the Circular, etc. as directed by this Hon'ble Court. He submits that the writ petitioners are working for a long time and they should be regularised in any future vacancy.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Circular, Intimation and Corrigendum were to be considered by the Chairman and the concerned Chairman has, in fact, considered the aforesaid Circular i.e. Notification No.3598/PN but in the last portion of the order the date was wrongly mentioned as 8th October, 2009 instead of 8th October, 2008.
He submits that it is a mere typographical mistake. He also submits that at the time of consideration the Corrigendum was also considered as per the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court. He submits that the case of the writ petitioners was considered on the basis of the guidelines given in the Circular and there is no illegality and there is no scope for regularisation of service of the petitioners in the special facts and circumstances of their case that there is no regular post of such nature under the Panchayet Samity.
He submits that it is clear finding of the Chairman that the work is not of perennial nature. He submits that the case of the petitioners was considered properly and in compliance with the order passed by the Hon'ble Judge on 18th February, 2010. There is no irregularity and/or illegality whatsoever in the order. The writ petition must fail.
Heard the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. It would be very relevant to quote the portion of the order passed in the first writ petition on 19th April, 1999. The relevant portion is quoted hereunder:-
"In such circumstances, this Court thinks it fit and proper to allow the petitioner to participate in the selection process provided the petitioner is otherwise eligible for the particular post, so that the petitioner may not lose any opportunity of participation in ythe selection process pending ultimate decision of the Special Bench of this Hon'ble Court.
The concerned respondent is, thus, directed to allow the petitioner to participate in the selection process provided the petitioner is found to be eligible for the said post irespoective of the fact that his name has not been sponsored by the Employment Exchange ."3
It appears that the learned Single Judge refused the prayer for regularisation but permitted the petitioners to take part in the interview to be held by the respondent authorities for regular appointment along with other eligible candidates and also gave a relaxation of age bar in their favour. It is admitted by both the parties that the writ petitioners were allowed to appear in the interview but they could not become successful in the interview and resultantly they could not get employment in a regular post. Failing to get their employment under regular process the writ petitioners moved a writ petition for the second time and this Hon'ble Court directed to consider the case of the regularisation on the basis Circular dated 8th October, 2003 and Intimation dated December, 2003 as well as Corrigendum dated 30th July, 2004. The relevant portion of the order is quoted hereunder:- "Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances o the case, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the District Level Selection Committee, Purba Medinipore, the added respondent, to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with the notification, intimation and corrigendum and shall pass a reasoned order to be communicated to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of presenting the certified copy of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other necessary parties and after making necessary enquiry."
The Chairman concerned have come to the following conclusion:
"In the particular case Sri Sudip Ranjan Shit and Sri Subhas Ch. Jana were engaged officially in the Jumki Gram Panchayat as a casual worker to perform the work of a G.P. Karmee from May, 2000 and March, 2001 respectively which is not "for a continuous period of more than three years (for at least two hundred and forty days of work in each such calendar year for three consecutive years) within the last five years before 13.03.1996 Moreover, in terms of para-4 of the Notification No.4572/PN/O/I/#S- 114/03 dated 07.09.2006.
i) "No Gram Panchayat or Panchayat Samity or Zilla Parishad shall engage any casual worker or contingent worker or work-charged worker or seasonal worker either on ad-hoc basis or against any sanctioned posts;."
ii) In cases where the engagement of casual workers, contingent workers or work-charged workers or seasonal workers were made by any Gram Panchayat or Panchayat Samity or Zilla Parishad for execution of schematic works or project works after the 13th March, 1996 such cases shall be treated strictly in termsof Notification No.3598/PN/O/I/3S-14/2003 dated 08.10,2003."
In terms of clause ( ) of Notification No.3598/PN dated 08.10.2003 where it is stated "Employees appointed on adhoc or temporary basis after 13.03.1996 who are otherwise eligible and have worked for at least three years shall, however, be allowed to compete along with other candidates sponsored by an employment exchange in the selection tests to be held by the selection committee for regular selection or appointment to the post. If such as adhoc or 4 temporary employee does not qualify himself in the selection test for the purpose he must give way to the regular selected candidate."
Accordingly, the aforesaid petitioners are entitled to avail the opportunity as noted on the above mentioned para and on the basis of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court's Order dated 07.04.2005 in the matter of Writ Petition 6862 (W) of 2005, Subhas Ch. Jana. -vs- State of West Bengal filed by the same petitioner previously they were allowed to appear for a selection test in the post of G.P. Karmee held on 05.10.2005 and availed the opportunity offered in clause (X) of the said Notification in the meantime but failed to qualify.
Thus the claims of the petitioners regarding regularisation and absorption directly in the vacant post of Gram Panchayat Karmee are therefore considered and rejected due to the non-fulfilment of the condition as envisaged in clause (I) of the notification 3598/PN dtd 08.10.2009 alongwith corrigendum no.2324/PN/O/I/3S-114/03 dtd. 13.07.2004.
Let the order be communicated to the petitioners & others concerned."
I have considered the matter and found that the concerned District Magistrate being the Chairman of the District Level Selection Committee, Puba Medinipore have come to a lawful conclusion. I do not find any illegality and/or irregularity in the order impugned.
Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. There would be no order as to costs.
Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, as expeditiously as possible.
( Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J. )