Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Bibek Roy Chowdhury vs Thehon'Ble High Court At Calcutta & Ors on 16 January, 2023

 20     16.01              IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ct No
 21
        2023                 Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
AGM
                                     Appellate Side

                                  W.P.A. 1125 of 2023

                             Bibek Roy Chowdhury
                                      Vs
                     TheHon'ble High Court at Calcutta & Ors


                Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta,
                Mr. Arka Nandi,
                Mr. Sutirtha Nayek
                                                   ... For the petitioners.

                Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty.
                               ... For the High Court Administration.


                      The petitioner applied for the post of Process Server

                pursuant to an employment notification dated May 19,

                2022 for staff recruitment in the Judgeship of Jhargram.

                The said post of Process Server (Group C) was advertised

                in   the    unreserved     (UR)     category.    Thereafter,    a

                corrigendum was issued. Pursuant to the aforesaid

                corrigendum to recruitment notification dated May 19,

                2022, the vacancy to the post of Process Server was

                advertised in the category of UR (EC) candidate.

                      Immediately,       the      petitioner    registered     his

                complaint. The petitioner wanted his last application form

                to be cancelled. He wanted to apply for another post

                advertised in the recruitment notification. Thereafter, it

                was informed to the petitioner by a Email dated May 31,

                2022 that the post of Process Server/ Summon Bailiff was

                for UR category candidates only. The petitioner was given
                         2




to believe that the said post was not UR (EC) category.

      Thereafter,   a       list    of   eligible   candidates     was

published by the District Judge, Jhargram and Chairman

of the Recruitment Committee, Jhargram judgship on

September 5, 2022.

      The petitioner was shown to be an eligible candidate

in the said list. Names of ineligible candidates also

appeared in the said list. Pursuant to the said list dated

September    5,   2022,       the    petitioner     sat   for   written

examination. In the merit list dated November 24, 2022,

the petitioner scored 80 in the unreserved category.

Thereafter, by an Office Memo dated December 16, 2022

only three candidates in the UR (EC) category were called

for a Personality Test. The same is scheduled to be

conducted on and from January 16, 2023 till January 19,

2023. The petitioner was shocked to say the least in not

finding his name on the selected list of candidates who

were directed to appear for Personality Test for the post of

Process Server.

      Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta, learned advocate appearing

on behalf of the petitioner submits that the marks

obtained in the written test by the petitioner is far more

the marks obtained by the candidates in UR (EC)

category.

      Affidavit-of-service filed today in Court by the

petitioner is retained with the records.

      Despite service no one appears on behalf of the
                           3




respondent no. 3 to respondent no. 7.

Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty, learned advocate appears for the High Court Administration being respondent nos. 1 and 2.

After considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and materials placed on record, this Court is prima facie of the view that the rights of the petitioner will be severely prejudiced if the petitioner is not allowed to participate in the Personality Test, that is, to be held from January 16, 2023 till January 19, 2023.

After categorically indicating to the petitioner that the said post of Process Server would only be filled from the UR category, the concerned respondents could not only interview the candidates in the UR (EC) category only.

Relying on the representation of the respondents concerned, the petitioner has materially altered his position to his prejudice by not applying to any post other than the post of Process Server.

Therefore, it is only fair that the petitioner should be called for an Personality Test by January 19, 2023.

The respondent no. 3 will file a report on affidavit by February 13, 2023 to explain the position why after informing the petitioner by an E-mail dated May 31, 2022 that the post of Process Server is only for UR category candidates and after calling the petitioner for written test by publishing his name in the list of eligible candidates 4 the petitioner was not called for a Personality Test being held between January 16, 2023 and January 19, 2023. Exception, if any, to the said report be filed by February 20, 2023.

Let the matter appear under the same heading 'Motion' for further consideration on March 1, 2023.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner will be at liberty to communicate the gist of the order passed in Court.

All parties are directed to act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Hon'ble Court.

( Lapita Banerji, J.)