Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sampa Mondal & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 27 November, 2018
Author: Subrata Talukdar
Bench: Subrata Talukdar
1
15.
27.11.2018.
Ct. No. 26.
F.B.
W.P. 2515 (W) of 2016
Sampa Mondal & Anr.
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Somsuvra Mukherjee
..... For the Petitioners.
Mr. Sarwar Jahan,
Ms. Mousumi Mitra,
Mr. Maidul Islam Kayal
..... For the Respondent
No. 6.
Party/Parties is/are represented in the order of their name/names as printed above in the cause title.
Mr. Mukherjee, Learned Advocate appears for the petitioners and assails the selection to the post of Gram Rojgar Sevak (GRS) on contract basis for development work in Gram Panchayats (GPs) under Budge Budge-I Development Block, District South 24-Parganas.
At the very outset Learned Advocate submits that this is a changed brief and a fresh Vakalatnama has been filed vide filing no. A-7083 dated 18th of June, 2018.
Learned Advocate for the petitioners argues that by the advertisement for appointment of GRS the cut-off academic 2 qualification was fixed as Higher Secondary Passed in Science Stream with at least 55% marks, preferably from a State Board.
Second, at least six months training in Basic Computer knowledge (from any recognised institute) specially MS Office, e- Mail was required.
It is argued that the petitioner no. 1 has completed her Higher Secondary (Vocational) Course (Old Syllabus) from the West Bengal State Council of Technical and Vocational Education and Skill Development (for short the Council). It is also argued that in terms of the revised engagement procedure for GRS dated the 18th of October, 2017, the Vocational Course at the Higher Secondary stage shall be treated as equivalent to Higher Secondary Passed in the Science Stream.
It is further argued that computer training was part of the Vocational Course and therefore, the petitioner no. 1 also satisfied the second eligibility criteria in terms of the advertisement.
A reference is made by the petitioner to the appointment of the private respondent no. 6 as GRS, who is represented by Mr. Jahan, Learned Counsel.
It is alleged that the respondent no. 6 was working in dual capacity, that of a GRS and also that of a Civic Police Volunteer (CPV).
Mr. Jahan submits that the private respondent no. 6 has given up the position of CPV upon joining as a GRS and, in any view of the matter, the terms of the advertisement dated the 3rd of January, 2015 did not debar the private respondent no. 6 from 3 applying to the post of GRS inspite of his then engagement as a CPV.
Having considered the rival submissions as well as the materials on record, this Court must notice the clear terms in which the official respondents and, more particularly the Block Development Officer (BDO), Budge Budge Development Block- I/Respondent No. 4, has stated on affidavit that the credentials of the petitioner no. 1 were found to be incorrect in connection with the criteria required as per the advertisement of 3rd of November, 2015.
Having regard to paragraph 3 of the Report of the BDO/the Respondent No. 4 although, this Court may find a semblance of legitimacy in the stand taken by the petitioner that her Higher Secondary Vocational certificate may be treated as co- equal to Higher Secondary pass in the Science Stream in terms of the Revised Engagement Procedure as subsequently declared on the 18th of October, 2017, this Court, on the basis of the mark- sheet produced by the petitioner of her Vocational Course cannot be ad idem with the petitioner that she possessed the basic computer certificate showing six months training in areas specified in the advertisement namely, MS Office, e-Mail.
This Court finds it difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner no. 1 that merely because she had computer training as part of her Vocational Course at the Higher Secondary stage, the fulfilment of the second condition in the advertisement of having at least six months training in basic computer language stands automatically fulfilled.
4Therefore, this Court cannot fault the Respondent No. 4/the BDO for concluding at paragraph 3 of the Affidavit of the BDO, that the petitioner no. 1 did not produce a supporting computer certificate.
For the above reasons, this Court is unable to extend any relief to the writ petitioner no. 1. Needless to mention the appointment of the respondent no. 6 is also not disturbed.
Be it recorded again that by order dated 31st October, 2017 the stand of the Petitioner No. 2 was recorded that she does not intend to proceed with this lis.
W.P. 2515 (W) of 2016 stands accordingly dismissed.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Subrata Talukdar, J.)