Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Shyamal Sarkar & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 2 March, 2016
Author: Nishita Mhatre
Bench: Nishita Mhatre
1
02.03.2016
Item No.27
ad
W.P.S.T 435 of 2012
Sri Shyamal Sarkar & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Dilip Chakrabarty
...... For the petitioners
Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharyya,
Ms. Sukla Das Chanda
...... For the respondents
The recruitment process for the post of Fire Engine Operator-cum-Driver commenced with the recruitment notice being issued by the Government of West Bengal. The petitioners had all applied for appointment to the post. The criteria which was required to be met by the petitioners and other candidates was that they had to pass a physical measurement test, endurance test, driving test and the viva voce. The petitioners were issued the Admit Card and they appeared for the aforesaid tests. However, it was found that they did not have the merit to be appointed in the aforesaid post. Therefore, their names were not included in the select list. 142 vacancies had been advertised by the State. However, in view of the nature of the post and the requirement of the Fire Department it was found necessary to increase the number of vacancies which the State was empowered to do under the recruitment notice.
The recruitment process was quashed by the Administrative Tribunal on 18th August, 2010 and the State was directed to issue a fresh recruitment notification. Accordingly, a notification was issued on 4th September, 2010 in all 2 leading newspapers and on the web site. As mentioned earlier although there were only 142 vacancies which had been increased as per the notification 200 candidates were selected on the basis of merit. The results were published in November, 2010. The petitioners were not selected as they were not found meritorious in the test.
Being aggrieved by the fact that their names were not in the merit list, the petitioners preferred the Original Application No.70 of 2011. They contended that the recruitment process had been conducted mala fide and there were several irregularities and illegalities in the process. It was pleaded that the selection was vitiated by bias, nepotism and extraneous considerations. The other issue raised by the petitioners was that despite the fact that only 142 vacancies had been advertised 200 persons had been selected.
The Tribunal after considering the submissions of the parties dismissed the Original Application. It observed that the petitioners were not successful candidates and there was no reason to doubt the manner in which the selection process was conducted. It was held that there was no material on record to indicate that the selection process was vitiated because of any nepotism or favouritism.
The Tribunal considered the submissions of the petitioners regarding enhancement of vacancies in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Arup Das & Ors., vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2012(2) Supreme 141, it held that considering the emergent nature of the situation and the authority being empowered to increase the vacancies under the recruitment 3 notification, they had been enhanced. The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the application.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the marks allotted to the petitioners which have been stated in the affidavit-in-opposition have been rightly given to them. According to him, there is no proper assessment of the petitioners and despite all of them being good drivers two of the petitioners have obtained only 4 marks in the driving test. He submits, therefore, that this shows that the assessment of the candidates was not fair. He further submits that the number of vacancies could not have been increased as it is contrary to the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. The next submission made by the learned counsel was that the entire selection process should be set aside as it was riddled with nepotism, favouritism and mala fide.
On perusing the affidavit-in-opposition we find that 142 vacancies were initially notified. However, that notification itself contained a clause empowering the State to select more candidates by increasing vacancies if the exigencies of the situation so demanded it. Although 200 candidates were accordingly selected, only 152 candidates had joined till 25th March, 2013. We do not find it improper for the State to increase the number of vacancies when the Fire Department was recruiting drivers. Considering the nature of the work and the duty hours the State could have felt the need to create more vacancies. Since the recruitment notice itself empowered the State to create more vacancies we do not find any reason to differ from the Tribunal's order on this aspect. 4
The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the improper assessment of the petitioners is also not well founded. We have considered the marks which they have obtained and it is apparent that each of them has been assessed in a proper manner. It is not as if all of them have been given the same marks. Where a candidate has been found to be good, he has been given more marks and others who obviously were not good enough have been given lower marks. The last candidate who was selected ranked 109 whereas the petitioner no.1 who was the highest amongst the others was only ranked 194 in the list.
Moreover, the allegations regarding nepotism, bias and, favouritism have not been substantiated by the petitioners.
The last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the petitioners ought to be given one more chance to appear for the driving test and the respondents should be directed to assess them again. We are not convinced with this argument. There is no reason why the petitioners should be treated differently from the other unsuccessful candidates. It would always be open for them to apply afresh in a recruitment process, if they meet all the criteria.
Furthermore, the petitioners have not cared to join the successful candidates to this petition as party respondents. Therefore, no order to their prejudice can be passed in their absence.
5
In any event, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. It has considered the issues raised before it by the petitioners and for good reasons has rejected the claim of the petitioners.
The petition is dismissed.
(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Tapash Mookherjee, J.)