Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
For The vs K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao Reported In ... on 3 March, 2011
Author: Pratap Kumar Ray
Bench: Pratap Kumar Ray
3.3.2011. W.P.S.T. No. 542 of 2010
Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya
Mr. D.N. Roy
Ms. Munmun Tewary
.. for the petitioners.
Mr. Kallol Basu
.. for the State.
______
Pratap Kumar Ray, J.
Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. Assailing the order dated 26th August, 2010 passed in O.A. No. 454 of 2010 by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal whereby learned Tribunal below did not pass any interim order, this writ application has been filed.
Another Division Bench who heard the matter earlier granted order of status quo. Grievance made before the learned Tribunal below about the selection process for recruitment of Group-D post in Irrigation & Waterways Directorate, Government of West Bengal as the concerned employer did not advertise the vacancies in the daily Newspaper following the judgement delivered in the case Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam, Krishna District A.P. - vs- K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao reported in (1996) 6 SCC 216. The petitioners before us moved the original application and sought for stay of the selection process as the concerned employer intended to proceed with the selection process inviting names from Employment Exchange only. The justification of advertisement for a post in the daily Newspaper inviting application from all eligible candidates 2 has been considered in depth by the Division Bench of this High Court wherein one of us (Pratap Kumar Ray, J.) delivered the judgement in the case Gayanath Rajbanshi -vs- State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2008 (2) C.H.N 879 wherein the Constitution Bench Judgement passed in the cases State of Karnataka -vs- Uma Debi (3) reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, R.S. Gark -vs- State of U.P. reported in (2006) 6SCC 430 and Keshabananda Bharati -vs- State of Kerala reported in (1973) 4 SCC 225 were referred to and relied to hold that Article 14 of the Constitution of India is the basic structure of the Constitution and it mandates equal treatment. The judgement of Excise Superintendent (supra) also was dealt with and considered including the judgement passed in the case Arun Kumar Nayak -vs- Union of India reported in (2006) 8 SCC 111. In the case Arun Kumar Nayak (supra) the Court held that judgement passed in Excise Superintendent (supra) is the law of land and employer must advertise the post in the daily Newspaper in addition to seeking names from the Employment Exchange. In the case Excise Superintendent (supra) it is held by the Apex Court, that principle of fair play, justice and equal opportunity in employment mandates that all candidates irrespective of sponsorship eligible for the post are entitled to appear in the interview.
Following those judgements, subsequently another Division Bench of this Court wherein Pratap Kumar Ray, J. as a Presiding Judge delivered judgement in the case Debendra 3 Nath Mondal -vs- Ratan Kumar Das reported in 2008 (1) CLJ (Cal.) 912 by considering the issue afresh and held Article 14 of the Constitution of India mandates equal opportunity in employment and, as such, the advertisement in the post in the daily Newspaper along with invitation of sponsored candidates would satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. An S.L.P. No. (Civil) 10024 of 2008 against the judgement and order passed in the case Debendra Nath Mondal (supra) stood dismissed on 8th September, 2008 by Apex Court.
Having regard to the factual parameter of this case as it appears from the writ application, we are of the view that there should be stay of the entire selection process relating to selection of candidates of Group-D post under different circles of Irrigation & Waterways Directorate, Government of West Bengal as initiated only inviting the names of eligible candidates from various Employment Exchanges without advertising the vacancies in the daily Newspapers inviting application from eligible candidates. Since the judgement passed in Excise Superintendent (supra) is the law of land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India irrespective of Recruitment Rules which provides otherwise, the Excise Superintendent (supra) will have binding effect.
This stay will continue till disposal of original application by the learned Tribunal below. 4
Learned Tribunal below is directed to dispose of the original application being O.A. No. 454 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible.
The writ application is accordingly allowed to that extent granting stay.
It is made clear that if the panel already has been prepared, no effect of such panel and no appointment from the said panel should be given till disposal of the application and if any appointment from said panel already made, it will abide by result of original application.
Let xerox plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Advocates appearing for the parties on usual undertaking.
(Pratap Kumar Ray, J.) I agree.
(Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri, J.) sks.