Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sanjib Chakraborty vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 19 July, 2017
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Biswanath Somadder
AND
The Hon'ble Justice Sankar Acharyya
MAT 2016 of 2016
with
CAN 607 of 2017
Sanjib Chakraborty
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Srijan Nayak
Mr. Shibendra Narayan Sukul
Mr. Arindam Mitra
... For the applicant/appellant.
Mr. Yasin Ali
Ms. Tapati Samanta
... For the State.
Ms. Smita Das De
... For the respondent nos. 6-7.
Heard on : 19.7.2017.
Judgment on : 19.7.2017.
Biswanath Somadder, J.
By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and taken up for consideration along with its connected application.
The appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 29th August, 2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. 11987 (W) of 2015 (Sanjib Chakraborty vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). The appellant before us was the writ petitioner.
2The issue before the learned Single Judge was with regard to non-consideration of the candidature of the writ petitioner for the post of an Executive Assistant of a Gram Panchayat based on the examination held for the said post sometime in the year 2011. The facts of the case, which appear from the order of the learned Single Judge, reveals that the writ petitioner made an application for obtaining a copy of the answer script sometime in the year 2014. After the answer script was sent to him, the petitioner thought that his answers were right and the examiners, in spite of his right answers, had not awarded him marks. The writ petitioner, thereafter, filed the writ petition on 10th June, 2015.
The learned Single Judge took into consideration the respective contentions of the parties and observed to the effect that the petitioner was not even empanelled and on the basis of marks awarded he could not have been empanelled amongst the first seven candidates. The learned Single Judge, thereafter, proceeded to observe that the Court had no right to issue a Mandamus in such a situation which depends upon too many ifs, some of which are absolutely speculative and subjective. The writ petition was consequently dismissed.
During the course of hearing of the instant appeal preferred by the writ petitioner, this Court directed the concerned authority of the State to file a report in the form of an affidavit stating therein specifically as to whether the allegations made in the writ petition or in the Memorandum of Appeal/stay application had any basis or not. Such report in the form of an affidavit was subsequently filed.
Upon perusing the report, the following statements made therein were taken note of by this Bench in the order dated 14th June, 2017: -
"Paragraph 3(viii): - That it appears to me from the answer scripts submitted by the appellant Sri Sanjib Chakrabarty that the answers of the petitioner to two questions being Question No.4(i) of Bengali and Question No. I(b) of English were correct and he should have been given 1.00 in Bengali and 0.50 in English totaling to 1.50 marks in addition to the marks given to him.
Paragraph 3(ix):- That if the writ petitioner was given the said 1.50 marks then his score would be (74.93 + 1.50 = 76.43), and in such a case he would have occupied the 6th position in the panel dated 24th February 2014. However, for the change of the position of the petitioner in the said panel, the answer scripts of candidates occupying 8th and 9th 3 positions in the said panel are also required to be reviewed at least in respect of those two answers."
On that day, i.e., 14th June, 2017, this Bench issued the following direction: -
In view of the above statements made by the District Panchayat and Rural Development Officer, Murshidabad, we direct the State authority to conduct a review of the answer scripts of the candidates occupying 8th and 9th position in respect of the two answers to the two questions. The questions are - Question No.4(i) of Bengali and Question No. I(b) of English. Once the review is made, the District Panchayat and Rural Development Officer, Murshidabad, shall file a further report in the form of an affidavit on or before the next date. The entire exercise, in terms of this order, shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks, but not later than four weeks from date. List this matter under the same heading five weeks hence for further consideration." Pursuant to the above direction of this Court, a further report in the form of an affidavit has been filed in Court today on behalf of the District Panchayat and Rural Development Officer, Murshidabad.
Perusing the same, it appears that the statements made in paragraph 3(viii) are somewhat relevant and the same is set out hereinbelow: -
"3(viii) As a result of my work of review of the Answer Scripts of the candidates occupying 8th and 9th positions as well as that of the appellant who was placed in the 10th position in the said panel, it is found that the candidate no. 8 was rightly awarded marks for his answers to the said two questions; the candidate no. 9 is entitled to additional ½ mark and the appellant is entitled to additional 1.50 marks for his answer to the said two questions and if such entitlement of the said three candidates are accepted and added to their scores in the panel of 2011, the outcome of review turns out to be as shown in the Table furnished below:
TABLE AS ABOVE REFERRRED TO :
Rank Roll No Name Marks in the Marks on Marks on Total Marks
before revi panel of 2011 Review as to review to be after review
wing be added in added in
respect of respect of
Bengali English
question question
4
8 MSD/ Rabiul 75.71 0 0 75.71
EA/16 Islam
86
9 MSD/ Sujit 75.50 0.50 0 76.00
EA/04 Mukher
53 jee
10 MSD/ Sanjib 74.93 1.00 0.50 76.43
EA/08 Chakrabo
97 rty
The table, as reflected above, reveals that the appellant was required to have been awarded a total of 76.43 marks instead of the marks that were awarded in his favour in the year 2011, i.e., 74.93. Had the appellant been awarded 76.43 in the year 2011, he would have come within the zone of consideration for the purpose of being empanelled as the sixth candidate out of seven empanelled candidates. However, we are informed that the 2011 selection process is long over and the subsequent selection process initiated in the year 2014 has also been completed. A mandamus cannot be issued at this belated stage, since it would tantamount to turning the clock back. The writ petitioner ought to have approached this Court within the timeframe when the 2011 selection process was still alive. As such, even though the appellant/writ petitioner has been able to make out a clear case that he ought to have been awarded 76.43 marks instead of 74.93 marks, we cannot issue a mandatory direction upon the concerned authority of the State to treat him as an empanelled candidate for the 2011 selection process.
The instant matter has highlighted one important factor that the concerned authority of the State is required to take into consideration while conducting such selection processes involving the public at large. It has to make an endeavour to ensure that there is zero error in the marking process while the answer scripts of candidates are being evaluated, since 5 even a miniscule discrepancy in such a process can result in a suitable candidate not coming within the zone of consideration, as it evident from the facts of the instant case.
With the above observations, the appeal and the applications stand disposed of. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted by the Registrar General of this Court to the Additional Chief Secretary of the Government of West Bengal holding charge of the Panchayat and Rural Development Department.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.
(Biswanath Somadder, J.) I agree.
(Sankar Acharyya, J.) ap