Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bikash Saha & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 19 December, 2014
Author: Ishan Chandra Das
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas, Ishan Chandra Das
In The High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
P R E S E N T:-
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas.
And
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ishan Chandra Das.
W.P.S.T.NO. 347 OF 2013
Bikash Saha & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioners : - Mr. Md. Salahuddin.
Advocate
For the respondents : - Mr. Joytosh Majumdar.
Ms. Sulagna Bhattacharya
Advocate
C. A. V. On : - 12.12.2014
Judgment delivered on: - 19.12.2014
Ishan Chandra Das, J. :
In the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the four petitioners are questioning the propriety of the order of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal dated March 22, 2012 in O.A. No. 1339 of 2010 whereby the Tribunal rejected the prayer of the petitioners and others with a finding that the selection process was conducted in accordance with law.
The Department of Fire & Emergency Services, Government of West Bengal invited application from the eligible candidates in proper pro-forma for appointing to the posts of (i) Fire Engine Operator cum Driver (FEOD) (ii) Staff Car Driver (SCD) (iii) Assistant Mobilizing Officer (AMO) and (iv) Group - D. The petitioners participated in the selection process for recruitment of Fire Engine Operator cum Driver. They claimed that they were successful at every stage of the selection process; but that their names were missing in the final list, prepared and published ultimately for appointment.
The petitioners claimed that they performed well at every stage of the selection process; but that the authority concerned ignored their merit and the petitioners apprehended that by adopting unfair means, nepotism, corruption and being influenced by extraneous consideration the respondents prepared the list, excluding their names.
Mr. Salahuddion, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners who participated in the selection process expected fruitful result by way of inclusion of their names in the panel for appointment to the posts of FEOD, but that ultimately the panel was not prepared on merit, but guided by some extraneous consideration, rampant corruption and nepotism to eliminate the genuine candidates like the petitioners and to accommodate the persons of the choice of the respondents.
Mr. Majumdar appearing for the State has referred to the findings of the Tribunal & submitted that the list was prepared on merit in the selection process conducted by the authority concerned. He has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MADAN LAL AND OTHERS versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS, reported in (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases, 486.
The petitioners Bikash Saha and Goutam Bayen were two Scheduled Caste candidates. Bikash obtained 8.7 marks and Goutam obtained 11.5 marks and their ranks were 328 and 141 respectively. The last selected candidate from the panel in the said category obtained 14.1. Similarly, the petitioners Asish Kumar Ghosh and Fariad Hossain, two general caste candidates, obtained 13.9 and 14.6 marks and their ranks were 293 and 257 respectively. The last selected candidate in the panel from the said category obtained 19.1.
The Tribunal while dealing with the application being O.A. No. 1339 of 2010 scrutinized the materials placed before it by the department concerned and the Tribunal did not notice any irregularity in the selection process. The Tribunal categorically held that it examined the performance of each of the petitioners who filed the O.A. including the present petitioners and held that these petitioners did not obtain sufficient marks for coming within the zone of consideration for their appointment to the posts, they applied for.
So far as the allegations of corruption, malpractice, nepotism are concerned no evidence was produced before the Tribunal to come to even a prima facie conclusion about the truth of such allegation. Mere allegations of extraneous consideration vitiating the selection process cannot be any ground to interfere with the process. The allegation of corruption, nepotism must be proved by cogent and convincing evidence and mere conjecture or suspicion cannot take the place of proof.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the principle stated in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and we find that the decision taken by the Tribunal is right and we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Tribunal. The petitioners' application being W.P.S.T. No. 347 of 2013 is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
We make no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be supplied to advocates for the parties upon compliance with all formalities. Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. : I agree.
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.
Ishan Chandra Das, J.