Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Arindam Biswas vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 17 November, 2016
Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty
Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty
1
17.11.2016
Item No.10
ad
W.P 8154(W) of 2015
Sri Arindam Biswas
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Kushal Chatterjee ...... For the petitioner
Mr. Jyoti Prakash Chatterjee
...... For the respondent nos.2 & 3
The instant writ petition has been preferred challenging, inter alia, a letter dated 25th March, 2015 issued by the respondent no.3.
Mr. Kushal Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that Singur-I, Gram Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as the said Panchayat) adopted a decision to engage temporary Additional Tax Collectors on contractual basis and, accordingly, an advertisement was published on 9th December, 2014. Responding to the said advertisement the petitioner applied and he was called for an interview scheduled on 27th March, 2015 by a letter dated 19th March, 2015 issued by the respondent no.3. Only two days prior to the said scheduled date of interview, a letter dated 25th March, 2015 was again issued by the respondent no.3 intimating the petitioner that the decision to hold such interview on 27th March, 2015 has been cancelled. Aggrieved by such abrupt cancellation of the said interview the petitioner has approached this court.
Mr. Chatterjee argues that the respondents cannot arbitrarily refuse to hold the interview and to consider the petitioner's claim towards engagement. The interview has been cancelled without any appropriate reason and as a consequence thereof the petitioner has been deprived of the opportunity of engagement in the post of Additional Tax Collector. The respondents cannot arbitrarily and without any reason scuttle the selection process. In support of his contention Mr. Chatterjee has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of East Coast Railway & Anr. Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao & Ors., reported in (2010)7 SCC 678. 2
Records reveal that by an order dated 14th September, 2015 the respondent no.3 was directed to file a report in the form of an affidavit in response to the grievance of the petitioner. Pursuant to such direction a report was filed by the respondent no.3 annexing a resolution adopted by the said Panchayat on 25th March, 2015.
Mr. Jyoti Prakash Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the said respondent no.3 submits that the interview was cancelled by a majority decision of the said Panchayat on 25th March, 2015. The reason towards cancellation of such interview was that the marks specified for academic qualification, experience, handwriting and interview were not in consonance with the relevant Government Order.
In reply Mr. Kushal Chatterjee disputes the submissions made on behalf of the respondent no.3 and submits that having taken a decision to fill up the post of Additional Tax Collector and after selection of the petitioner for participation in the interview, the respondents could not have cancelled such interview. Such decision was arbitrary and based upon extraneous considerations.
Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. The post sought to be filled up is a temporary post of Additional Tax Collector to be engaged by the said Panchayat only on contractual basis. The selection process was stopped and the interview was cancelled and as a consequence thereof no panel was prepared. The petitioner was a mere participant in the selection process. It is well settled that even if a candidate is empanelled, he acquires no indefeasible right to be appointed to the concerned post in respect of which the selection is made. In exercise of the powers of judicial review the Court can interfere only when the selection process had been scuttled for mala fide reasons or in an arbitrary manner. It is not the case of the petitioner that some candidates were called for the interview and that he was left out. From the pleadings it does not appear that the interview was cancelled in an arbitrary manner. As such, the judgment delivered in the case of East Coast Railway (supra) has no manner of application in the instant case. The cancellation of such interview was pursuant to a resolution adopted by the majority members of the said 3 Panchayat, primarily on the ground that the relevant Government Orders were not followed while conducting the selection process. It is apparent that no legally enforceable right of the petitioner has been infringed warranting interference of this Court.
For the reasons discussed above, no interference is called for and the writ petition is dismissed.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be given to the parties.
(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.) 4