Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Md. Pairul Shaikh & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 26 March, 2014
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Biswanath Somadder
WP No. 1681 (W) of 2011
With
CAN 5879 of 2013
Md. Pairul Shaikh & Ors.
-Versus-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioners : Mr. Subir Sanyal,
Mr. Dibyendu Chatterjee
For the State : Mr. Sadhan Kumar Halder
For the Respondent : Mr. Priyabrata Ghosh
No. 14
Heard on : 26.03.2014 Judgement on : 26th March, 2014. Biswanath Somadder, J. :-
Let the affidavits filed on behalf of the parties be taken on record. The writ petition has been taken out by several individuals, who have joined together as co-petitioners, essentially challenging the selection process initiated by the concerned respondent authority for the purpose of filling up the posts of Executive Assistant in various Gram Panchayat offices situated in the 2 district of Murshidabad, mainly on the ground of insufficiency of notice and nepotism.
Admittedly, none of the petitioners participated in the selection process. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioners that his clients were not given sufficient notice which would have enabled them to participate in the selection process for the posts-in-question. He also submits that during the period when written test was conducted one of the candidate's father was an invigilator, while some of the other candidates were working in the computer department of various Gram Panchayat offices in the district of Murshidabad.
Learned advocate for the petitioners has relied on two judgments of this Court:- 1) Noor Emam Khan vs. State of West Bengal, reported in 2007 (2) CLJ (Cal) 700 and 2) W.P. 15505 (W) of 2010 (Bikash Das & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) unreported.
In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the Deputy Magistrate & Deputy Collector in the District of Murshidabad, it appears to have been categorically stated therein that for the purpose of filling up of the posts of Executive Assistant in the Gram Panchayat offices of Murshidabad district, an advertisement was published on 10th December, 2010, in two leading newspapers namely, Ananda Bazar Patrika and Ganashakti. Both the newspapers are daily newspapers and its circulation is all over India particularly, in the State of West Bengal. The intending candidates were requested to submit their applications by 20th December, 2010, by hand, in the office of the District Magistrate, Murshidabad Panchayat and Rural Development Section, Berhampur. It has also 3 been stated by the State in its affidavit that the petitioners no. 4, 6 and 7 have been residing in the District Head Quarter at Berhampur and the other petitioners also reside nearer to the district town. Ten days' time was sufficient for them to submit their applications in the District Head Office at Berhampur.
From the affidavit filed on behalf of the private respondent no.14, it appears that he has annexed certain information obtained under the Right to Information Act, on 29th January, 2013, with regard to the number of applicants who participated in the selection process from the local area where the writ petitioners have stated to reside. It further appears therefrom that not only candidates from the district of Murshidabad, but from several other districts including 24-Parganas (N), Bankura, Birbhum, Burdwan, Howrah, Jalpaiguri, Kolkata, Malda, Nadia, Paschim Midnapur, Purulia and Uttar Dinajpur, also submitted their applications for the purpose of participating for the post-in- question.
The learned advocate for the State has drawn this Court's further attention to his client's affidavit, which has been used as counter to the supplementary affidavit of the writ petitioner, wherein the same set of information has been disclosed.
From the disclosure in the pleadings filed by the respondents, as stated above, there is no scope for this Court to hold that sufficient notice was not given by the concerned respondent authority to enable the applicants to participate in the selection process for the posts-in-question. The two judgments, which have been cited by the learned advocate for the petitioners, have been rendered in 4 completely different factual contexts. It is noticed that in Noor Emam Khan's case (supra), the advertisement for the posts of Group-C and Group-D employees in the Judgeship of Howrah was published in a local bi-monthly news Magazine, namely, 'Juger Khabar,' circulation of which was confined to Howrah district only. The other judgment relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioners was rendered in a factual context of issuance of duplicate admit cards. It was held by the Court in that matter that a duty was cast upon the State respondents to impart necessary information as regards the issuance of duplicate admit cards through the office of the Gram Panchayat besides making publication in the newspapers. Not having done so, the State had deprived a large number of applicants from participating in the selection process.
So far as the allegation of nepotism is concerned, there is no necessity for the Court to embark on a fact finding exercise, especially when none of the petitioners have even participated in the selection process.
For reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition, which is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.
(Biswanath Somadder, J.) sb.
5