Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pronab Biswas vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 5 July, 2013
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
1
05.07.13
(12)
Basudev W. P. 18795(W) of 2013
Pronab Biswas
VS
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Amit Kr. Ghosh
- For the Petitioner.
Md. Talay Masood Siddiqui
- For the State.
Despite being selected for appointment on the post of
process server in the district of Murshidabad, the petitioner has
not been offered appointment on the ground of subsistence of
an interim order passed in W. P. No. 11516(W) of 2012
(Somenath Bagdi vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.). In fact, the
panel in which the petitioner's name figures, also contain a
condition that appointment of candidates therefrom would be
subject to the final result of such writ petition.
Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that
information obtained by him by invoking the provisions of the
Right to Information Act, 2005 reveals that the interim order
passed in W. P. No. 11516(W) of 2012 restraining the
respondents to fill up one post of process server and to keep it
vacant has lapsed on 23rd July, 2012. It is, accordingly, submitted that since there is no interim order subsisting as on date, the petitioner ought to be offered appointment.
It does not appear that before approaching this Court, the petitioner had brought such fact to the notice of the District Judge, Murshidabad.
I am of the view that interest of justice would be best served if the petitioner approaches the District Judge with a 2 suitable representation seeking appointment on the post of process server. Liberty is granted accordingly.
In the event, the District Judge is approached, he shall ascertain as to whether any interim order subsists or not. If an interim order is subsisting, the petitioner shall be informed of its particulars; on the contrary, if no interim order is subsisting, the petitioner may be considered for appointment on the post of process server. If a decision favourable to the interest of the petitioner is taken, the District Judge shall clearly mention in the offer of appointment that his appointment shall abide by the result of W.P. 11516(W) of 2012.
Though it has been submitted by Mr. Siddiqui, learned advocate representing the State that the Court may hear this writ petition together with W. P. No. 11516(W) of 2012, I have not considered it proper to accept his request. W.P. No. 11516(W) of 2012 is not on the list and prima facie it appears that the petitioner (Somenath Bagdi) has not taken sufficient interest to have the interim order extended. That apart, Somenath Bagdi is not even an empanelled candidate and keeping a post vacant for him till such time his writ petition is decided would serve no good for him; on the contrary, it is the interest of the justice delivery system that would be prejudicially affected by reason of a vacancy in the post of process server. It is, therefore, necessary that the District Judge proceeds to consider the matter in the light of the aforesaid observation.
This writ petition stands disposed of.
3There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.
( Dipankar Datta, J.)