Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Akd vs The Panskura Municipality & Ors on 24 February, 2017
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
1
80 24.02.17 W.P. 5217 (W) of 2017
&
81
Ct No. 2
& Hasibul Rahaman Khan
82
akd Vs.
The Panskura Municipality & Ors.
With
W.P. 5219 (W) of 2017
Mithu Manna Biwi & Ors.
Vs.
The Panskura Municipality & Ors.
With
W.P. 5221 (W) of 2017
Animesh Kaw
Vs.
The Panskura Municipality & Ors.
--------
Mr. B. R. Bhattacharyya, Mr. Saugata Bhattacharyya, Mr. Goutam Dey, Ms. Rituparna Sengupta, Mr. Anupam Das.
... for the petitioners.
These writ petitions are taken up on mentioning by the petitioners on the ground of urgency.
The affidavits of service filed in Court today does not reveal that the copies of the writ petitions have been served on the Chairman of the Panskura Municipality and the other respondents.
However, it is informed to the Court that Mr. Dilip Sinha, learned advocate, made a communication to the petitioners that he is appearing for the respondents.
2When a leave was granted to the petitioners for taking up the instant writ petitions out of turn on the ground of urgency, the petitioners were further directed to serve notice upon Mr. Sinha, who, according to the petitioners, is engaged to appear on behalf of the respondent authorities.
It is informed by the learned advocate on record of the petitioners, namely Ms. Rituparna Sengupta, that she contacted Mr. Sinha several times over his mobile phone, but all the time his mobile is switched off. All her attempts have gone in vain and because of the urgency she pleads before the Court to take up the matter.
It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that Mr. Sinha is deliberately avoiding such communication, so that the matter may not be taken up today and the mischief would be done, as the writ petitions would render infructuous.
On such perspective this Court takes up these writ petitions in absence of the respondents.
The petitioners applied for the post of Mojdoor, Typist and Peon on the basis of an advertisement published by the respondent no. 2.
According to the petitioners, they fulfilled all the conditions laid down therefor, but the admit cards have not been issued to them. The petitioners say that the Councillor of the said Municipality, who is also the member of the Selection Committee, has raised objection on the functioning of the Chairman in relation to the recruitment process. A serious allegation is made against such Chairman in adopting pick and choose policy.
3It appears that the selected persons have been issued the admit card, but most of the applicants have not received the same and naturally the selection would be restricted amongst them. It offends one of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution where equal opportunity must be given to all eligible persons for offering their candidatures for appointment.
This Court, therefore, finds a prima facie case having made out by the petitioners.
The Chairman of the Panskura Municipality is directed to permit the petitioners to sit in the written examination scheduled to be held on 26th February, 2017, but shall not publish the result until further order of this Court.
The permission to participate in the examination shall not create any equity in favour of the petitioners nor would prejudice the right of the respondents, if ultimately found by this Court in these writ petitions.
Let these writ petitions appear on 2nd March, 2017 in the supplementary list.
Let photostat plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the advocate on record of the petitioners as well as Mr. Dilip Sinha, learned advocate for the respondent authorities, on usual undertaking.
(HARISH TANDON, J.) 4