Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Uday Singh vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 15 February, 2017
Author: Subrata Talukdar
Bench: Subrata Talukdar
1
15.02.2017
S.L.-76(KB)
W.P. 3023 (W) of 2017
Uday Singh
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Alok Kumar Biswas
Mr. Abhishek Biswas
... For the petitioner.
Mr. Sadhan Roy Chowdhury
Mr. K. M. Hossain
... For the State Respondents.
Mr. Alok Kumar Biswas, Learned Counsel appears for the writ petitioner and submits that in spite of the recruitment process which was initiated way back in1998, till date such recruitment process is yet to see a logical conclusion.
Mr. Biswas explains the delay in filing this writ petition on the ground that the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short the 2005 Act) reply was received from the respondent no.7 in June, 2016 which, reaffirmed the earlier reply sent on 26th September, 2014 by which it was claimed that no applicant was found to be suitable and, therefore none appointed permanently.
2It is also argued by Mr. Biswas that the petitioner is awaiting a logical conclusion of the selection process in respect of which his participation was affirmed by the order of an Hon'ble Single Bench dated 22nd March, 1999 in W.P. No.24011 (W) of 1998.
On behalf of the Respondents including the Respondent No.7, Mr. Sadhan Roy Chowdhury, Learned Senior Government Advocate appears and reiterates the position as reflected in the 2005 Act Replies of 2014 and 2016 (supra) by which it has been conveyed that no permanent appointment could be made and, therefore the work was executed on contractual basis.
Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court must express its prima facie surprise at the fact that the selection process instituted in 1998 is yet to be logically concluded in spite of the fact that by the order dated 22nd March, 1999 an Hon'ble Single Bench had recorded observations permitting the petitioner to participate.
It is again a matter of prima facie surprise to this Court that the selection appears to have been contractually done without even including the name of the petitioner as directed by order dated 22nd March, 1999 (supra), who had offered himself for permanent selection but was not even within the zone of 3 consideration for the contractual selection made by the Respondent no.7.
It is a third matter of prima facie surprise to this Court that at the end of nineteen years from the date of original advertisement, the Respondent no.7 is carrying on the work with contractual appointees as on date.
The final matter of prima facie surprise to this Court relates to the fact that no reasons are assigned for not completing the permanent selection process and, therefore, taking recourse to long term contractual appointees who, on a reasonable assumption, could not be more advantageously placed qua the permanent selectees, including the writ petitioner.
In the backdrop of the above discussion, this Court calls for a report on affidavit from the Respondent no.7 on the next date.
Let the matter appear under same heading 'Motions"
fairly at the top in the Combined Monthly List of March, 2017.
Steps taken shall abide by the result of this writ petition.
(Subrata Talukdar,J.)