Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Somnath Bagdi vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 11 July, 2017
Author: I.P. Mukerji
Bench: I.P. Mukerji
1
08 11.7.17
W.P. 11516(W) of 2012
Somnath Bagdi
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Debojyoti Basu
Mr. A. Ganguly .... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Tapan Mukherjee
Mr. Somnath Naskar .... For the State Respondent.
This writ concerns recruitment of staff for the Murshidabad judiciary.
The writ petitioner applied for the post of Process Server in the Scheduled Caste category. The number of vacancies for this post was nine. Four were in the general category. Two were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates, one for Scheduled Tribe and the other two for O.B.C(A).
In the staff recruitment examination, a panel was prepared where the rank of the petitioner was sixty six. However, in the final selected list which is at page 64 of the affidavit-in-opposition his name did not appear. S.D. Mr. Debojyoti Basu, learned Advocate for the petitioner argues that the cause of this was that a single panel was sought to be prepared for all the posts. A 2 separate panel ought to have been prepared for each post, considering the applications of candidates who had applied for that post only. Since a single panel was prepared, candidates who had opted for other posts were also considered for the post of Process Server, depriving the petitioner of a chance to be selected. If separate panels had been prepared the petitioner would surely have been selected. Therefore, equals have been treated unequally according to the petitioner. The action of the respondents is alleged to be arbitrary and discriminatory. Hence this writ.
More or less the same issue arose in an earlier writ (W.P. 16005(W) of 2012) which was heard and disposed of by this Court on 9th October, 2013. The following argument was made before it as noted in the judgement of the Court.
"3. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 by presenting this writ petition dated July 23, 2012.
4. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate representing the petitioner, contended that the respondents acted illegally and in excess of their jurisdiction by including in the panel candidates who had never applied for appointment on the post of process server. Attention of the court was drawn to the final panel to show that only the candidate at serial no. 2 had applied for the post of process server. According to him, preparation of a single panel for different categories of posts has resulted in unequals being treated as equals, thereby offending the guarantee of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. He, thus, prayed for an order on the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner."
The Court ruled as follows:-
"27. The writ petition, accordingly, succeeds. Since number of unreserved vacancies in respect of the post of process server is 4 and amongst the candidates who had applied for appointment on such post the petitioner obtained the second position in the final panel, she is entitled to an offer of 3 appointment subject to verification of her antecedents and other legal formalities. If there is a vacancy in the judgeship of Murshidabad on the post of process server, the petitioner shall be immediately offered appointment on such post. The offer of appointment must reach her within a week after reopening of the Court after annual vacation. If no vacancy is presently available, she shall be offered appointment as soon as a vacancy arises."
In this case by the interim order made on 19th June, 2012 one post of Process Server was directed to be kept vacant.
In those circumstances following the above judgement I direct as follows:
The respondents will process the application for selection of the petitioner in the manner indicated by the said judgement of Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta dated 9th October, 2013.
Since appointments have already been made, in the special facts of this case, a notional panel for the post of Process Server will be prepared. If the writ petitioner qualifies to be included amongst the four general candidates or in the two vacancies for Scheduled Caste candidates, the petitioner will forthwith be appointed by the respondents to the post of Process Server within eight weeks of communication of this order.
It is made clear that in the said notional panel the writ petitioner must be deemed to be competing with the candidates who have applied for the post of Process 4 Server only. This order will not permit the respondents to cancel the appointment of any person as none of the other appointees have been heard in this writ application.
This writ application is accordingly disposed of. Let a plain photocopy of this order duly counter signed by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be handed over to learned counsel for the parties upon usual undertaking.
( I.P. Mukerji, J.) 5