Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dr. Rafique Ahamed vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 19 December, 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
19-12-2018Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Subrata W.P.No.13655(W) of 2017 Dr. Rafique Ahamed
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Narayan Chandra Mondal ...for the petitioner Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharya Mr. Kartik Chandra Kapas ...for the State The writ petitioner is aggrieved with regard to a recruitment process of part-time homoeopathic doctor conducted in the year 2010.
This is a third round litigation. Initially, the petitioner was declared ineligible, since he was overage. However, in view of an order dated May 7, 2010 passed by this court in WP No.9086(W) of 2010 the petitioner was allowed to participate in the selection process. Subsequently, when no decision was taken for finalisation of the process of recruitment, the writ petitioner resorted to a second round litigation by filing WP No.2933(W) of 2017 in which a co-ordinate Bench of this court on February 10, 2017 had directed the Chief Executive Officer, SPHC, WBSRDA to dispose of the writ petitioner's claim for engagement/employment as part-time doctor in accordance with law in the light of the recruitment process, 2010. The Chief Executive Officer by an order dated March 27, 2017 rejected the proposal sent by the AEO dated August 8, 2016. It is clearly mentioned in the 2 said order that the writ petitioner was not eligible, since he had crossed the maximum age prescribed for recruitment as Ayush doctor under the National Health Mission at Hadipur in Jhakira-II gram panchayat.
I find that the order is reasonable and made after giving due consideration of all relevant documents. Hence the same cannot be interfered with.
The petitioner in support of his contention relies upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Surinder Singh Jamwas & Anr. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. reported in AIR 1996 SC 2775.
I find that the relied upon decision was concerned with a claim of temporary ad hoc workers to continue in the post until permanent engagement is made. The said decision therefore has no application in the facts of the instant case.
For these reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Certified website copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties.
[Rajasekhar Mantha, J] 3