Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Nirupama (Roy) Barman & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 22 March, 2013
Author: Murari Prasad Shrivastava
Bench: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, Murari Prasad Shrivastava
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CLACUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
And
The Hon'ble Justice Murari Prasad Shrivastava
F.M.A. 101 of 2013
NIRUPAMA (ROY) BARMAN & ORS.
-Vs-
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
........ W I T H ........
M.A.T. 1846 of 2012
DAYA SARKAR (DAS)
-Vs-
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
For the Appellants : Mr. Bidyut Kiran Mukherjee,
(in both the appeals) Mr. Gautam Thakur
For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar Chakraborty,
(in FMA 101/2013) Mr. Manas Kumar Sadhu
For the State : Mr. Chandi Charan De,
(in MAT 1846/2012) Mr. Soumitra Bandyopadhyay
Heard on : 22.03.2013
Judgment on : 22.03.2013
Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.
Both the appeals arise out of the same order dated 3rd October, 2012 passed by a learned Judge of 2 this court in the writ petition being W.P. No. 10402(W) of 2010 whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge dismissed the writ petition on merits without granting any relief to the writ petitioners herein, who are the appellants in the present appeals.
The appellants herein participated in the selection process for the post of Anganwadi Helpers and were also empanelled for appointment. The life of the panel was for a period of two years only. After the expiry of the initial period of two years, life of the said panel was again extended for a further period of one year. During the extended period of the life of the panel in question, a legal proceeding was initiated before this court on behalf of the appellants herein. The learned Single Judge, however, refused to grant any relief to the appellants herein only on the ground that the life of the panel in question had expired.
This Court specifically held in the case of Prabir Sinha Roy & Ors. vs. The Hon'ble The Chief Justice, High Court, Calcutta & Ors. reported in 1996 (II) CHN 497 that the claim of the empanelled candidates cannot be defeated on the ground that the validity of the panel expired during the pendency of the litigation. In the aforesaid decision, this 3 Court also held that the candidates will have a right to be considered for appointments to the vacant posts in question which occurred before the expiry of the validity period of the panel.
Subsequently, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Ram Swarup Saroj reported in AIR 2000 SC 1097 specifically held that the relief cannot be refused on the ground of expiry of the life of the panel during the pendency of the litigation. The relevant extracts from the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court are set out hereunder:
"10................................................ Merely because a period of one year has elapsed during the pendency of litigation, we cannot decline to grant the relief to which the respondent has been found entitled to by the High Court .................."
In the present case, the learned Advocate representing the State-respondents on instruction submits that the scheme in question is still operative where the Anganwadi Helpers could be appointed from the panel in question although the life of the said panel expired during the pendency of the legal proceedings before this court.
Following the decisions of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that the claim of the appellants herein should be 4 considered for appointment to the vacant posts of Anganwadi Helper since the said claim cannot be refused on the ground that the life of the panel expired during the pendency of the legal proceedings.
We are, therefore, unable to approve the decision of the learned Single Judge and the same is accordingly, set aside.
The respondent authorities herein are directed to consider the claim of the appellants for appointment to the posts of Anganwadi Helper against the vacancies which occurred during the validity period of the panel in question i.e. on or before 22nd September, 2010 without any further delay but positively within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, both the appeals stand allowed.
Leave is granted to the learned Advocate-on- record of the appellants to correct the typographical mistake with regard to the address of the appellant No. 39 in the appeal being F.M.A. 101 of 2013 in course of this day.
5
In the facts of the present case, there will be no order as to costs.
Let a xerox plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Advocates of both the parties on usual undertaking.
[PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J.] Murari Prasad Shrivastava, J.
I agree.
[MURARI PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA, J.] akd