Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Partha Kumar Mallick vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors.) on 6 October, 2016
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
06.10.2016 W. P. 19748 (W) OF 2014
(Partha Kumar Mallick -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors.)
.7
no.13
Mr. Rajarshi Halder
Ms. Pampa Chakraborty
Ms. Arpita Chatterjee
Ms. Aunkita Dutta - for the Petitioner
Mr. Manish Sen - for the Respondent nos. 2 & 3
Mr. Rajdeep Bhattachdarya Mr. Tamal Chatterjee - for the Respondent no. 8 The petitioner has assailed the appointment of the private respondent to the post of Accountant (morning session) of the college.
The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted referring to the various Government notifications that, the selection process was not conducted in accordance with such Government orders.
Although affidavits were filed, at the time of hearing considering the allegations levelled by the petitioner, I had directed the college authorities to produce the relevant documents by way of affidavit. The college authorities have filed an affidavit which be kept with the record.
Drawing the attention of the Court, the learned advocate for the college authorities has submitted that, the college authorities had undertaken the selection process by evaluating various criteria of the contesting candidates including taking interview of such contesting candidates. He has submitted that, at the interview the private respondent had received highest mark and therefore, the private respondent was given the appointment. He has also submitted that, the petitioner had participated in a 2 subsequent selection and that such selection process is yet to be completed. He has next submitted that, in the event the Court is pleased to set aside the appointment of the private respondent, then the appointment of the private respondent should be allowed to be continued for a definite period, so that the college authorities are not in inconvenience.
The learned advocate for the private respondent has submitted that the petitioner had participated in a subsequent selection process knowing fully well the manner in which the candidates are to be assessed for the purpose of selection.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.
The college concerned had undertaken a selection process for the purpose of filling up of vacancy of an Accountant. The selection process required the college to initially look into group C staff for the purpose of granting promotion and in the event, no suitable candidate is found, to undertake a fresh selection process.
In the case at hand four candidates of group C staff had participated for the selection. The participants included the petitioner and the private respondent.
The college authorities have produced a score sheet for promotion from Lower Division Clerk to Accountant. The score sheet was prepared on June 14, 2015. It appears that the college authorities had constituted a selection committee who had considered all the participants on the basis of the criteria as appearing in the score sheet. However, the score sheet shows that marks have been awarded only for the purpose of interview. The other criteria have not been taken into consideration for the purpose of awarding of marks.
The learned advocate for the college has referred to a Government order dated November 19, 2007 as one governing the field. Taking such Government order to be 3 governing the field (although the petitioner disputes the same), such Government order requires attendance, experience, efficiency, seniority and character roll to be taken into consideration. In my understanding, if the marks are to be awarded at the selection process, then the marks ought not to be limited only to the interview. The other criteria noted in the Government order dated November 19, 2007 should be assessed on the basis of marks also. In the present case, the selection committee did not award any mark on the other criteria, although had taken the same into consideration. As an instance, as against a 'good attendance' of the petitioner, a 'quite satisfactory attendance' remark has been given against the private respondent. The petitioner claims to be at least four years' senior to that of the private respondent. The ultimate order of the selection committee does not give any reason as to why the private respondent has been found suitable over the petitioner.
By an order dated July 16, 2014, it has been provided that the promotion of the private respondent would abide by the result of the writ petition.
The participation of the petitioner in the subsequent selection process does not take away the right of the petitioner to continue with the present writ petition. It does not affect any of his rights and contentions.
In such circumstances, the promotion of the private respondent no. 8 is set aside. The college authorities are at liberty to undertake a fresh selection strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
Since I have set aside the appointment of the private respondent, it would not be proper to accept the request of the college authorities to allow the private respondent to continue in the same post during the interregnum period. It would be open to the college authorities to identify a suitable person for the purpose of officiating at the post now falling vacant consequent to this order.
4
With the aforesaid observations and directions, W. P. No. 19748 (W) of 2014 is disposed of without any order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)