Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Amritarupa Chakrabarti vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors.) on 12 November, 2013
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
-: 1 : -
373
12.11. 2013
rrc
W. P. 424 (W) of 2013
(Amritarupa Chakrabarti Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.)
&
W. P. 426 (W) of 2013
(Prananath Barui Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.)
&
W. P. 28016 (W) of 2012
(Cvhandan Mallick & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.)
&
W. P. 1146 (W) of 2013
(Sandipan Mukhopadhyay & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal &
Ors.)
with
C.A.N. 4986 of 2013
&
W. P. 26166 (W) of 2012
[Paramita Mallick (De) Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.]
&
W. P. 11534 (W) of 2013
(Sushanta Paul Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.)
Mr. Piyush Chaturvedi
Mr. Amit Kumar Ghosh
Ms. Anwesha Saha
.....For the petitioners
{in WP 424 (W)/13 &
WP 426 (W)/13]
Mr. Samaraditya Pal
Ms. Koeli Bhattacharya
.....For the petitioners
[in WP 28016 (W)/12 &
WP 1146 (W)/13]
Mr. Swapan Banerjee
.....For the petitioner
[in WP 26166 (W)/12]
Mr. Debraj Bhattacharjee
Mr. Arun Singha
Mr. Tamal Chatterjee
.....For the petitioner
[in WP 11534 (W)/13]
Ms. Sanghamitra Nandy
Ms. Paramita Pal
.....For the State
[in WP 424 (W)/13]
Mr. Pradip Dutta
Ms. Paramita Pal
-: 2 : -
.....For the State
[in WP 426 (W)/13]
Mr. Nirmal Kumar Manna
Mr. Sanjib Das
.....For the State
[in WP 1146 (W)/13]
Mr. Alak Kumar Ghosh
Mr. Dilip Kumar Chatterjee
Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee
......For the High Court Admn.
These writ petitions relate to a selection process initiated by the
High Court at Calcutta, inter alia, for recruitment of 'Process Server'
in the Judgeship of 24-Parganas (South). The same have been heard
together and shall stand disposed of by this common judgment and
order.
Employment Notification dated 6256-RG dated 6th July, 2011
was issued by the Registrar General of this Court inviting applications
from eligible candidates for recruitment to various vacant posts in the
several judgeships of this State. Insofar as the post of 'Process Server'
in the judgeship of 24-Parganas (South) is concerned, the notification
declared that in all 76 vacancies would be filled up, of which 66 were
existing as on that date and 10 were expected to arise. Out of the 76
vacancies, reservation was indicated as follows: -
SC - 17, ST - 4, OBC (A) - 8, OBC (B) - 6, PH - 3 & EX.
SERVICEMAN - 7.
The remaining 31 were unreserved vacancies.
-: 3 : -
The petitioners in all these writ petitions offered their
candidature for recruitment on the post of 'Process Server' and it is
claimed by them that they were empanelled. Respective positions of
the petitioners in the panels alongwith their status, as evident from
the writ petitions, are given below: -
W. P. No. 424 (W) of 2013
Name: Amritarupa Chakrabarti General Sl. No. 30
W. P. No. 426 (W) of 2013
Name: Prananath Barui General Sl. No. 26
W. P. No. 28016 (W) of 2012
Name: Chandan Mallick General Sl. No. 29
Suman Dey Sarkar General Sl. No. 20
Alam Biswas OBC (A) Sl. No. 06
Nafees Ahmed OBC (A) Sl. No. 07
Tapas Ghosh OBC (B) Sl. No. 5
Aditya Mondal SC Sl. No. 13
Partha Mondal SC Sl. No. 17
W. P. No. 1146 (W) of 2013
Name: Quazi Salauddin General Sl. No. 16
Debabrata Sarkar General Sl. No. 21
Bapan Mondal General Sl. No. 22
Sandipan Mukhopadhay General Sl. No. 24
Biswajit Bhattacharyya General Sl. No. 27
Kushal Roy General Sl. No. 31
Gouranga Roy SC Sl. No. 09
Prosenjit Biswas SC Sl. No. 15
Sanjit Kr. Mondal SC Sl. No. 16
Pusparaj Ghosh OBC (B) Sl. No. 4
W. P. No. 26166 (W) of 2012
Name: Paramita Mallick (Dey) General Sl. No. 18
W. P. No. 11534 (W) of 2013
Name: Sushanta Paul OBC (B) Sl. No. 06
-: 4 : -
The panels appear to have been published vide order No. 7118-
AR (EMP) dated 19th July, 2012. A note appearing in the said order is
to the following effect: -
"Appointment Orders initially will be issued for upto
half of the existing vacancies in respect of each category in
order of merit in view of pending Writ Petition being W. P.
No. 713 (W) of 2012 in the matter of West Bengal Court
Employees' Association and Another Versus The State of
West Bengal and Others."
It is as a result of such note that offers of appointment were
issued in order of merit in favour of the candidates upto half of the
total number of vacancies for which the panels were prepared for
different categories viz. general, SC, ST, etc. The respective
petitioners, who were in the bottom half of the panels, were not
issued offers of appointment leading to presentation of these writ
petitions.
I have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the
materials on record.
The writ petition referred to in the note extracted supra
appears to be one at the instance of the West Bengal Court
Employees' Association and Joint Secretary of the 24-Parganas
(South) district committee thereof. It was their contention that the
selection process initiated by Employment Notification dated 6th July,
2011 referred to above is flawed because in terms of the
recommendations of the Shetty Commission, 50% of the vacancies in
-: 5 : -
the post of 'Process Server' ought to have been filled up by way of
promotion. It was claimed that as a consequence of Employment
Notification dated 6th July, 2011, all the vacancies in the post of
'Process Server' were being filled up by direct recruits and in the
process incumbents in the feeder posts of Group-D staff would be
deprived of the opportunity of promotion. Interim stay was thus
prayed for.
The writ petition was considered on 17th February, 2012 by a
learned judge of this Court. Upon consideration of the submission
advanced on behalf of the High Court Administration that the
selection process initiated by Employment Notification dated 6th July,
2011 was meant for direct recruitment and not promotion, the
learned judge refused to pass any interim order and called for
affidavits.
Although the West Bengal Court Employees' Association is a
respondent in W. P. No. 1146 (W) of 2013 and has been served, it has
neither chosen to enter appearance nor to file its affidavit-in- opposition.
Having regard to the fact that offers of appointment to the petitioners have been withheld only on the ground of pendency of W. P No. 713 (W) of 2012, the scope of judicial scrutiny on these writ petitions is limited in the sense that it has only to be judged whether
-: 6 : -
the learned District Judge, 24-Parganas (South) was justified in withholding offers of appointment merely on the stated ground.
At the admission stage of W. P No. 713 (W) of 2012, the Court prima facie accepted the submission advanced on behalf of the High Court Administration that the 76 vacancies in the posts of 'Process Server' were meant to be filled up by direct recruitment and that there was no breach of the recommendations of the Shetty Commission, leading to refusal to grant interim relief. In view thereof, offers of appointment in favour of the petitioners ought not to have been withheld. The proper course, in the circumstances, would have been to pass orders in respect of offering of appointment subject to the condition that such appointments would abide by the result of W. P No. 713 (W) of 2012. By not so ordering, the learned District Judge, in my considered view, has acted not only to the prejudice and detriment of the petitioners but also ignored the interest of the justice delivery system. It is not known as to when W. P. No. 713 (W) of 2012 would be finally decided. Half of the vacancies remaining unfilled for an indefinite period is a situation that desirably should have been avoided.
It is true that mere empanelment does not create an indefeasible right but at the same time arbitrary refusal to offer appointment to an empanelled candidate cannot be sustained.
-: 7 : -
The learned District Judge, 24-Parganas (South) is, accordingly, directed to take steps to offer appointment to the petitioners after satisfying himself that each of them is entitled to such offer on the basis of his/her position in the panels published vide order dated 19th July, 2012, notwithstanding the fact that the life of the panel has expired on 18th July, 2012. By an interim order dated June 27, 2013, it was directed that the panel shall not be treated to have lapsed until further orders. In the event of a satisfaction being recorded that each of the petitioners is entitled to an offer of appointment being issued in his/her favour, letters of appointment shall be issued which must reach them within a month from date. It shall be mentioned in such appointment letters that such appointment shall be subject to and abide by the result of W. P No. 713 (W) of 2012.
Before parting, it is necessary to record that a further advertisement was published on 12th February, 2013 inviting applications for filling up 39 vacancies in the post of 'Summon Bailiff' (earlier Process Server). By my order dated 16th September, 2013, I had requested the learned District Judge to inform the Court the exact dates on which such vacancies arose. It has been informed by the learned District Judge that the vacancies were advertised on the strength of a report of the concerned Nazir dated 29th January, 2013
-: 8 : -
and that he is not in a position to ascertain the respective dates on which the 39 posts of 'Summon Bailiff' fell vacant.
Instructions furnished to Ms. Pal, learned advocate for the State [in W. P. No. 424 (W)/2013 & W. P. 426 (W)/2013] by the learned District Judge in this regard shall be retained with the records.
I make it clear that no opinion is expressed in respect of the selection process initiated by Employment Notification dated 12th February, 2013 and all points in respect thereof are left open for being urged before the appropriate Court, if occasion therefor arises.
The writ petitions, accordingly, stand disposed of without any order as to costs. Connected application, if pending, also stands disposed of.
Photocopy of this order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Court Officer, shall be retained with the records of W. P. 426 (W) of 2013, W. P. 28016 (W) of 2012, W. P. 1146 (W) of 2013, W. P. 26166 (W) of 2012 & W. P. 11534 (W) of 2013.
( Dipankar Datta, J. )