Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
The State Of West Bengal & Others vs Chandra Kanta Ganguli on 26 April, 2017
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Nishita Mhatre, Tapabrata Chakraborty
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Nishita Mhatre
&
The Hon'ble Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty
MAT 949 of 2016
with
CAN Nos. 5941 & 5938 of 2016
The State of West Bengal & Others
Vs.
Chandra Kanta Ganguli
AND
MAT 950 of 2016
with
CAN Nos. 5942 & 5939 of 2016
The State of West Bengal & Others
Vs.
Kanchan Banerjee & Others
AND
MAT 1086 of 2016
with
CAN No. 5855 of 2016
Manas Chowdhury & Others
Vs.
Kanchan Banerjee & Others
AND
MAT 1087 of 2016
with
CAN No. 5858 of 2016
Partha Sarathi Singha Mahapatra & Others
Vs.
Chandra Kanta Ganguli & Others
With
MAT 1809 of 2016
Buddhiswar Mondal & Ors.
Vs.
Chandra Kanta Ganguli & Ors.
For the State-Appellants in MAT
Nos.949 & 950 of 2016 and
State-Respondents in MAT
1086 & 1087 of 2016. : Mr. Kishore Dutta, ld. A.G. Mr. Joytosh Majumder, Mr. Somnath Naskar.
For the Appellants in MAT 1086 & 1087 of 2016. : Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bandyopadhyay, Mr. Pinaki Dhole, Ms. Pramiti Bandyopadhyaya.
For the Appellants in MAT 1809 of 2016. : Mr. Soumya Majumder, Mr. M. Malhotra, Mr. Mainak Ganguly.
For the Writ Petitioners/ Private Respondents [in all the matters]. : Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Mr. Bikram Banerjee, Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta, Mr. Firdous Samim, Ms. Riddhi Choudhury.
For the State-Respondents in MAT 1809 of 2016. : Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee.
Hearing is concluded on : 07.03.2017. Judgment On : 26th April, 2017. Tapabrata Chakraborty J. :
1. A legal tussel has spiraled up to this Court seeking a quietus to the issues as to whether in the backdrop of the averments made in the writ petitions and the facts disclosed through the affidavits- in- opposition filed by the Principal Secretary (Coordination), Home Department, Government of West Bengal on 22nd April, 2016 and by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Administration), Bankura authorized by the Superintendent of Police, Bankura on 13th May,2016, the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the entire process of the 2013 recruitment (hereinafter referred to as the said recruitment process) of civic police volunteers (hereinafter referred to as the CPVs) at the Sarenga and Barikul police stations in the district of Bankura and in issuing direction towards constitution of a committee comprising of the Principal Secretary in the Finance Department as the Chairman, the present Transport Secretary and the present Commissioner of the Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate to look into the process of the recruitment of CVPs all over the State and to annul such of the engagements that may have been brought about in derogation to the eligibility criteria and without actually the candidates being interviewed in a reasonable process and to present its report to the Chief Secretary to the State Government within three months and in declaring that the engagements of CVPs under the said recruitment process shall not be valid after the end of the calendar year 2016.
2. The learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants submits that the writ petitions ought to have been dismissed at the threshold on the ground of delay. The recruitment process was of the year 2013 and the only written objection/representation submitted by the petitioners was three years thereafter on 9th March, 2016. Save and except a mere statement, bereft of any evidence, that prior to the written objection the petitioners approached the office of the respondent authority several times, there is no other explanation as to why the petitioners did not submit any written objection before the competent authority earlier though they came to learn on the respective dates of interview itself (8th April, 2013/12th April, 2013) that they have not been selected for engagement. The said explanation needs to be read with the averments made in paragraph 7 of the writ petitions in which it has been stated that "there are still, vacancies remaining within Sarenga police station in the District of Bankura as such your petitioners are entitled to be appointed as a civic police volunteer". From the said pleadings it is, thus, explicit that the writ petitions were nothing but chance litigations to get engagement. On the issue of delay and laches reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others -vs- T.T. Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108.
3. He further argues that the writ petitions have been allowed interfering with the engagement of 1,30,000 CPVs all over the State only at the instance of nine unsuccessful candidates who did not even implead the successful candidates. The learned Judge did not even issue appropriate direction towards issuance of notice and impleadment of the successful candidates. As a consequence thereof, an adverse order has been suffered by the successful candidates who had been engaged as CPVs way back in the year 2013. The impugned order thus suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the judgments delivered in the case of Ranjan Kumar etc. etc. -vs- State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2014) 16 SCC 187, in the case of Poonam -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (2016) 2 SCC 779 and in the case of Amlan Jyoti Borooah -vs- State of Assam & Others, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 227. Placing reliance upon the judgments delivered in the case of Madan Lal and others -vs- State of J. and K. and others, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486 and in the case of Dhananjay Malik & Ors. -vs- State of `Uttaranchal &Ors., reported in (2008) 4 SCC 171, he argues that having participated in the selection process, the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and challenge the selection process.
4. He further argues that as a rule, relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted. In the writ petitions it has only been pleaded that after submission of their bio data though the petitioners were told that there would be a physical efficiency test and physical measurement followed by an interview, they were only called for an interview in which no question was asked and they were told to submit photocopies of their identity cards and on the same date, a list was published declaring the names of the successful candidates, in which the their names did not appear and that as such the entire selection process was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. There is no pleading to the effect that the selection process was sham or that the respondents have acted mala fide. The petitioners also did not plead any bias or favouritism. In the absence of appropriate pleadings, the Court has conducted a roving enquiry and that too at the instance of nine persons who participated in the selection process and were unsuccessful. On the basis of such pleadings the learned Judge could not have passed the order impugned setting aside the entire recruitment process at the police stations of Sarenga and Barikul in the district of Bankura and could not have directed for annulment of all engagements of CPVs in the rest of the State subject to an enquiry upon constitution of a committee. The learned Judge has travelled beyond the pleadings while granting the reliefs. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the judgments delivered in the case of Union of India (UOI)- vs- Jai Prakash Singh, reported in (2007) 10 SCC 712 and in the case of Sadananda Halo & Others -vs- Momtaz Ali Sheikh & Others, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 619.
5. He argues that two different yardsticks have been applied by the learned Judge in respect of the recruitment process pertaining to the police stations of Sarenga and Barikul in the district of Bankura and pertaining to all other police stations in the State of West Bengal. The entire process of the 2013 recruitment at the Sarenga and Barikul police stations in the district of Bankura has been set aside and the recruitment process in the rest of the State has been directed to be annulled subject to an enquiry upon constitution of a committee. Thus the participants in the same recruitment process all over the State have been treated differently and such differentiation amounts to discrimination.
6. He further argues that the learned Judge has proceeded as if the recruitment process of 2013 was pertaining to selection of candidates in substantive posts. It would be explicit from the notification dated 26th September, 2011 that CPV force was being set up to assist the police for traffic management including parking of vehicles and to ensure public safety and to render public assistance. Such engagement of CPV was a need based deployment to assist the police and that they would have no claim as to the employability in police or any other department of Government. As such the learned Judge erred in law in applying the rigors of a regular selection process comprising of objective and subjective assessment to the facts of the cases. The learned Judge ought not to have taken upon himself the responsibility to provide guidelines towards selection of CPV. The Government is the competent authority to frame guidelines and to conduct a selection process on the basis of the same. The Court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe the guidelines and cannot add words and even if there is a defect or an omission in the guidelines, the Court cannot correct the defect or supply the omission inasmuch as such act would tantamount to judicial legislation, which is impermissible in law. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the judgments delivered in the case of Satheedevi -vs- Prasanna and another, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 622,in the case of Vijay Singh Charak -vs- UOI, reported in (2007) 9 SCC 743 and in the case of SECY. (Health) Deptt. Of Health & F.W. and another-vs- Dr Anita Puri and others, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 282.
7. In connection with the appeals filed by the State of West Bengal and others being MAT 949 of 2016 and MAT 950 of 2016, two applications were filed praying for leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 18th May, 2016 along with the applications for condonation of delay. The said applications were allowed.
8. Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bandyopadhyay, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of the applicants in MAT 1086 & 1087 of 2016 and submits that bereft of foundational facts the writ petitions have been allowed, interfering with the engagement of 1,30,000 CPVs all over the State at the instance of nine unsuccessful candidates in a recruitment process conducted three years ago. Surprisingly, prior to issuance of such a drastic order having repercussion all over the State of West Bengal, the learned Judge ought to have directed the petitioners to intimate such preference and pendency of the writ petitions to the successful CPVs, by way of an advertisement. No direction was also given to the State respondents to bring the fact of pendency of the writ petitions to the notice of the successful CPVs. Without any notice and without availing an opportunity to defend themselves, the applicants have suffered the impugned order and the same cannot even stand a moment's scrutiny being, ex facie, violative of the principles of natural justice. Placing reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India -vs- L.K. Ratna and others, reported in (1986) 4 SCC 537, he submits that even grant of an opportunity of hearing to the applicants at this appellate stage does not cure the defect of natural justice which occasioned before the learned Judge. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the judgments delivered in the case of Khetrabasi Biswal-vs- Ajaya Kumar Baral and Ors., reported in (2004) 1 SCC 317, in the case of Baluram -vs- P. Chellathangam and Others, reported in (2015) 13 SCC 579 and in the case of Ranjan Kumar etc. etc. -vs- State of Bihar &Ors., reported in (2014) 16 SCC 187. On the issue of delay and laches reliance has been placed upon the judgments delivered in the cases of The Printers (Mysore) Ltd. -vs- M.A. Rasheed & Ors., reported in (2004) 4 SCC 460, in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others -vs- T.T. Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 and in the case of Collector of Central Excise, cochin -vs- Western India Plywood, reported in (1998) 1 SCC 316.
9. He submits that in the writ petitions there is no averment to the effect that the selection was conducted through a sham process. The sole intent and purpose of the writ petitioners towards preference of the writ petitions was to pressurise the Government and to avail engagement as CVPs. Such intent would be explicit from the fact that the petitioners made only one written representation and that too after more than three years with a statement that still there are certain vacancies and as such they can be engaged in the same. The learned Judge also did not consider the issue that unsuccessful candidates having participated in a selection process cannot turn back and challenge the same. He argues that the learned Judge had committed an error in quashing the entire selection process even when the petitioners had not made any prayer to that effect. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the judgments delivered in the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan -vs- State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., reported in (2011) 7 SCC 639, in the case of K.A. Nagamani-vs- Indian Airlines, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 515 and in the case of K.H. Siraj
-vs- High Court of Kerala & Ors., reported in (2006) 6 SCC 395.
10. He further submits that no mala fide has been alleged against the successful candidates and the learned Judge erred in law in interfering with the decisions of professionally qualified authorities. The Court has conducted a roving enquiry on the factual aspect which is not permissible. While testing the fairness of the selection process wherein thousands of candidates were involved, the learned Judge should have been slow in forming an opinion as regards the entire recruitment process on the basis of the manner in which the selection process was conducted in two police stations and that too without granting any opportunity of hearing to the candidates selected in the said police stations. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the judgments delivered in the case of Sadananda Halo & Others -vs- Momtaz Ali Sheikh & Others, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 619 and in the case of Union of India -vs- Dr. Kushala Shetty and others, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 69.
11. Mr. Soumya Majumder, learned advocate appears on behalf of the applicants in MAT 1809 of 2016 and submits that a writ of mandamus can be issued only when there is a clear violation of an enforceable right and non-discharge of a co-related duty on the part of the respondents. In the instant case only by participating in an interview the petitioners did not secure any indefeasible right to be engaged as CVPs. Furthermore, the recruitment process was conducted in the year 2013 and the first written objection was lodged in the month of March, 2016. The petitioners themselves were aware that they would not be able to disturb a recruitment process which stood concluded three years ago and they took a calculated chance to avail engagement as CPV by preferring the writ petitions with a statement that there are certain existing vacancies in which they can be accommodated.
12. He further submits that the learned Judge erred in law in treating the writ petitions to be public interest litigations and in issuing directions interfering with the engagement of 1,30,000 volunteers appointed all over the State of West Bengal on the basis of two writ petitions preferred by nine unsuccessful candidates .
13. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners submits that on the basis of mere technicalities, the illegalities perpetrated by the respondents cannot be condoned. The State respondents through their affidavits have admitted the fact that 1351 candidates at Sarenga police station and 875 candidates at Barikul police station were interviewed on a single date. From such admission it is explicit that the interview itself was a farce and the same was designed to camouflage the real intent of the State respondents to engage only their favoured candidates. Any person selected on the basis of a sham selection process cannot claim appointment. On the basis of fake and ghost interviews candidates were selected and in the backdrop of such glaring irregularities, it was rightly observed by the learned Judge that "a scheme was devised to prey on the unemployed with little respect for the taxpayers' money". In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of Krishan Yadav and another -vs- State of Haryana and others, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 165.
14. Drawing the attention of this Court to the memorandum dated 26th September, 2011 and the documents in annexure 'R5' to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent no.4, Mr. Bhattacharya submits that the candidates who did not even fulfil the eligibility criteria were called for an interview and such ineligible candidates were engaged. In paragraph 8 of the said affidavit it has been stated that "the eligible candidates were selected provisionally on the basis of educational qualification, built, observation of application of mind, merit and aptitude". By the furthest of imagination it cannot be construed that such a large number of candidates could have been tested on the basis of the said riders on a single date. As the CPVs were required to be engaged to assist the police, they ought to have been tested on the basis of physical efficiency test and physical measurement test apart from a simple interview. The essential requirements to test the ability of the candidates to perform such nature of work were lacking. The entire recruitment was a sham process and the learned Judge has rightly set aside the recruitment of CPVs in the Seranga and Barikul police stations in the district of Bankura and directed constitution of a Committee to look into the recruitment process of CPVs as undertaken in the rest of the State. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of Praveen Singh -vs- State of Punjab &Ors., reported in AIR 2001 SC 152.
15. Placing reliance upon a judgement delivered in the case of Nidhi Kaim -vs- State of Madhya Pradesh & Others etc., reported in (2016) 7 SCC 615, Mr. Bhattacharya submits that normally, the rule of audi alteram partem must be scrupulously followed in the cases of cancellation of recruitment process but the abovementioned principle is not applicable to the cases where unfair means were adopted and where the recruitment process itself was vitiated.
16. In reply, the learned Advocate General submits that the conditions prescribed in the memorandum dated 26thSeptember, 2011 were general eligibility terms towards engagement of CPVs and the selection committee was conferred the discretion to prepare a panel upon overall consideration of the eligibility terms prescribed in the said memorandum. According to him, lack of certificates towards representation in school/club level sports and experience as NCC Cadet/Boy Scouts/ NSS Guide/Civil Defence Volunteers was not an absolute bar towards engagement as CPV. Drawing the attention of this Court to annexure 'R5' to the affidavit-in- opposition filed on behalf of the respondent no.4, he submits that the petitioner no.2 in W.P. No.6372 (W) of 2016 also did not have such certificate but he was interviewed. Thus, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that due to non-fulfilment of the eligibility criteria the entire recruitment process should be cancelled is not sustainable in law. The selected CPVs were sent for training prior to engagement and it also needs to be borne in mind that the State has ensured that the performance of the engaged CPVs would be under constant surveillance and they would be paid honorarium subject to issuance of a working statement to be certified by the officers-in-charge of the respective police stations or of the respective traffic guards where they would be deployed, as would be explicit from Clause 6 of the memorandum dated 26th September, 2011.
17. He further submits that the learned Judge had set aside the entire recruitment of CPVs at Sarenga and Barikul police stations primarily on the ground that 1351 candidates and 875 candidates were interviewed on a single date. The Court, however, did not notice the submission made on behalf of the petitioners and as recorded in the order dated 28th April, 2016that "the petitioner says that he participated in one of the group interviews with fifty persons being asked common questions and some persons being arbitrarily selected on such basis".
18. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. It is well settled that even though the power granted to the executive authority is not totally immune from judicial review but the Court makes an almost extreme presumption in favour of bonafide exercise of such power. The two indispensable riders for scrutinizing the validity of a recruitment process conducted by the government are to prevent "miscarriage of justice" and to secure "fairplay in action". It is the impact of the action that would define the nature of the procedure that is to be adopted. On one hand the civil consequence of an order, particularly one that visits the person with the harsh consequence of his engagement being cancelled and on the other the prejudice that would be caused due to denial of pre-decisional hearing needs to be weighed to determine as to whether the order impugned is sustainable. The aim of rules of natural justice is to secure justice. The 'exceptions' to the rules of natural justice are a misnomer or rather are but a shorthand form of expressing the idea that in rare and exclusionary cases nothing unfair can be inferred by not affording an opportunity to present or meet a case. The instant case does not come under such category. The order passed by the learned Judge setting aside the recruitment process severely prejudices the candidates, who upon selection have been engaged and have discharged duties over a period of more than three years and when the procedural law as well as the substantive law both mandates that in the absence of a necessary party, the order passed would be a nullity, a direction to implead the successful candidates would have cleared the obscurity and would not have rendered the judgment vulnerable.
19. The journey of the person who seeks the intervention of this Court is beset with insurmountable hurdles. Article 226 is not a blanket power, regardless of temporal and discretionary restraints. If a party is inexplicably insouciant and unduly belated due to laches, the Court may ordinarily deny redress. To awaken this Court's special power gross injustice and grievous departure from well-established criteria in this jurisdiction, have to be made out. Each case has to be weighed from its facts and the circumstances in which the party acts and behaves. From the conduct, behaviour and attitude of the writ petitioners it appears that they had been absolutely callous and negligent in prosecuting the matter. The petitioners had due notice that they would have to submit their bio data form/application to the respective police stations by 17th March, 2013. Pursuant thereto, they did submit such application by 23rd March, 2013. They had sufficient notice that the interviews at Barikul and Sarenga would be held on 8th April, 2013 and 12th April, 2013 respectively. They participated in the interview without raising any objection. Even after publication of the select list they did not file any written objection/complaint. The first complaint was lodged three years later on 9th March, 2016. From the said complaint also it appears that prior to the interview, the petitioners had knowledge that after submission of bio-data there will be a physical efficiency test and a physical measurement test. These tests were not conducted. In spite of such specific knowledge, the petitioners did not raise any objection prior to the interview. Courts exercising public law jurisdiction do not encourage agitation of stale claims and exhuming matters where the rights of third parties have accrued in the interregnum. The delay in approaching the Court is disturbing and the materials disclosed in the writ petitions were not apt to trigger admission of the writ petitions.
20. Indisputably CPVs are not to be appointed on a pay scale. They are to be paid honorarium. The posts of CPVs are not statutory posts or civil posts. Recruitment rules ordinarily applicable to the employees of the State are not applicable in their case and the State is not required to comply with the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No process of selection for the purpose of their appointment within the constitutional scheme exists as their engagement is only because they volunteered for the job. Thus the learned Judge was not justified in arriving at a conclusion that the entire designing of the process was faulty, irrational and derogatory to the constitutional provisions.
21. The selected candidates are not responsible for any error committed by the respondents. The position may have been different if they were guilty of any fraud, misrepresentation or malpractice that would have deprived them of any sympathy from the Court or justified their ouster. The selected candidates have served the State voluntarily and efficiently and without any complaint for nearly four years now and most of them, if not all, may have become overage for fresh recruitment within the State or outside the State. Their ouster from service after their engagement which was not affected by any malpractice or other extraneous consideration or misrepresentation will cause hardship to them and ruin their careers and lives. The experience gained by the selected candidates over the years would also go waste as the State will not have the advantage of using valuable human resource which was found useful in the service of the people of the State for a long time. There was, in the circumstances, no compelling reason for setting aside the recruitment process.
22. In the writ petition there is no allegation that proper notice was not issued for participation in the recruitment process. Equal opportunity was given to all to participate in the selection process. From the document at annexure 'R5' of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 it appears that certificates towards representation in school/club level sports and experience as NCC Cadet/Boy Scouts/NSS Guide/Civil Defence Volunteers were not insisted upon in respect of all the candidates who participated in the interview. The petitioner no.2 also did not have the said certificates but he was allowed to participate in the interview. Considering the nature of duty to be discharged, the candidates were judged on the basis of physique, alertness and smartness in appearance. Such selection ought not to have been found fault with in a mathematical manner. An expression of doubt only on the ground of large number of candidates appearing for an interview on a single date cannot by itself render the entire recruitment process held at the said police stations to be illegal.
23. In the pleadings there is no allegation of any malafide on the part of any of the State officials who were in the interview board. There is also no allegation of any bias or favouritism. The recruitment process was set aside since it appeared to the learned Judge that it was an impossibility on the part of the selection committee to interview 1351 candidates at Sarenga police station and 875 candidates at Barikul police station respectively on a single date. Before arriving at such finding, the learned Judge did not perhaps, notice the contents of the order dated 28th April, 2016 in which it stood recorded that "the petitioner says that he participated in one of the group interviews with fifty persons being asked common questions and some persons being arbitrarily selected on such basis". In the case of Sadananda Halo (Supra) it has been observed that no bench mark can be set as regards the highest number of candidates to be interviewed on a single date. It depends upon the post for which such interview is conducted, the nature of duty attached to such post, the nature of test to be applied and other ground realities.
24. The learned Judge while setting aside the recruitment process in the police stations at Sarenga and Barikul, issued direction towards annulment of engagement of CPVs all over the State subject to an enquiry to be conducted by the committee. The latter direction was supplemented by a further direction that all engagements of CPVs in the rest of the State cannot be extended beyond the said calendar year (2016). The rider supplemented renders the direction towards constitution of a committee and holding of an enquiry by the said committee to be an idle formality. In the absence of any specific or categorical finding supported by any concrete and relevant material that widespread infirmities of an all pervasive nature, which could be really said to have undermined the very process itself in its entirety or as a whole, there was hardly any justification in law to interfere with the engagement of 1,30,000 CPVs all over the State at the instance of nine unsuccessful candidates and that too three years after such engagements.
25. From the nature of directions contained in the impugned order it appears that the learned Judge has treated the matters as public interest litigation. It is true that in a public interest litigation the technical misdescriptions and deficiencies in drafting pleadings cannot be a secret weapon to non-suit a party but in writ petitions involving adversarial claims a party has to plead its case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate the averments made in the petition and relief has to be granted to the parties strictly based on their pleadings and no relief can be granted beyond the scope of the petition. To our mind, a priori, the petitioners could not have succeeded on the basis of the weaknesses in the pleadings or the evidence as adduced by the petitioner.
26. The indignation of the learned Single at the prospect of an irregular recruitment process is understandable and the anguish at the engagement of a person through such process is equally explicable but it is equally well settled that in cases where an executive action of the State is challenged, the Court must tread with caution and should not overstep its limits. The interference by the Court is warranted only when there are oblique motives or there is miscarriage of justice. The order impugned in the present appeals needs to be tested in the backdrop of the judgment delivered in the case of Sadananda Halo (Supra) which was not cited before the learned Single Judge and as such the learned Judge had no opportunity to consider the same. Although at first blush we were inclined to concur with the findings of the learned Single Judge, on a detailed assessment of the material on record and the observations in Sadananda Halo (Supra) it is not possible to do so. In the said case a recruitment process for appointment of Armed Constables in permanent vacancies under Armed Police Battalion was under challenge. The said recruitment process was set aside by the learned Trial Court primarily on the ground that more than 2000 candidates were called for an interview on a single day and that as such the selection was farcical. Though the recruitment process was for filling up permanent vacancies of Armed Constables, the Supreme Court, taking into consideration the judgments delivered in the case of Satpal -vs- State of Haryana, reported in 1995 SCC (L&S) 424 and in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav -vs- State of Haryana, reported in (1985) 4 SCC 417 observed that the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have interfered with the recruitment process mechanically and in a mathematical manner by setting a bench mark that not more than 250 candidates ought to have been interviewed on a single day. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court observed that "instead of testing the matter on the basis of the ground realities for each district on the basis of material made available by the State, a mechanical approach, in our opinion, could not have been taken by the High Court". Thus, even in a case where the rigors of a regular selection are applicable, the Supreme Court held that the entire recruitment process ought not to have been set aside by setting a bench mark that not more than 250 candidates ought to have been interviewed on a single day. Applying such reasoning to the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the Single Judge, while dealing with a recruitment process towards engagement of CPVs whose deployment is need based and whose duty is only to assist the police for traffic management, erred in law in setting aside the entire process of recruitment of CVPs for the year 2013 at the police stations of Barikul and Sarenga in Bankura district. The further direction of constitution of a committee for reviewing the recruitment process as conducted in the other police stations all over the State and observation that the engagement of CVPs in the said police stations shall not be valid after the calendar year of 2016 is also unacceptable. In spite of arriving at findings that "there is no evidence whether the engagements have been given on political or other extraneous considerations" and that "there is no evidence of the complicity of those who were engaged in the matter of their selection" and in spite of the fact that the writ petitions were not public interest litigations, the learned Judge erred in law in interfering with the engagement of CPVs all over the State when the petitioners in both the writ petitions participated in the selection process for engagement to the post of CPVs in the district of Bankura.
27. For the reasons discussed above, we set aside the impugned order dated 18th May, 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.6371 (W) of 2016 and W.P. No.6372 (W) of 2016 and allow the appeals.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance with the necessary formalities in this regard.
(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.) (Nishita Mhatre, A.C.J.)