Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sanjay Roy & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 April, 2017
Author: Sambuddha Chakrabarti
Bench: Sambuddha Chakrabarti
1
11.04.17
cl 100
ab
W.P. 1809(W) of 2017
Sanjay Roy & Ors.
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Ms. Aiswarjya Gupta,
... for the petitioners
Mr. Narayan Kr. Bhattacahrjee,
Mr. Manas Kr. Sadhu,
... for the State respondents
Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record. Heard Ms. Gupta, the learned advocate for the petitioners. The learned advocate for the State respondents has not been called on to make any submission.
The petitioners, nine in number, applied for the posts of 'Auxiliary Fire Operator' in the district of Jalpaiguri. The notified vacancies were 29. Subsequently, a list of selected candidates was published which contained their names. Thereafter, they were asked to appear for a screening test which they did. Their allegation is that out of the empanelled candidates, the respondents have given appointment to some of them but the petitioners have not been appointed. One of the points taken by the petitioners is that although they were earlier qualified physically, as such there was no necessity for them to appear at the screening and endurance test.
There is some variation between the pleading of the parties and the submission made in Court. However, by whatever standard the allegations of the petitioners are taken, the same are not sustainable in either case. If the 2 allegation of the petitioners that there was no necessity to appear at the screening test is no longer available to them as they themselves had appeared in the examination without a demur and after being ultimately unsuccessful, they cannot turn around and take an objection on the legality of the secreting test. Moreover, it is not clear why in a job like 'Auxiliary Fire Operator' where physical fitness of a candidate is a very important consideration, the authorities cannot ask them to go through the screening test.
That apart, the petitioners are merely empanelled candidates, nothing more than that. The law on the point is very well settled that a merely empanelled candidate has no right to be appointed merely because he has been empanelled. The authorities also in turn have a right not to fill up all the vacancies from the panel. The right of an empanelled candidate to be appointed may arise only when somebody below the rank in the panel is given appointment without considering his case. In that case the respondents will be required to justify the act. Otherwise, it has been decided in umpteen number of cases that mere empanelment confers no right to be appointed. If the petitioners have no right, they also cannot ask for a writ in the nature of Mandamus.
I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties at an early date.
(Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti,J)