Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Jiban Majhi And Anr vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors on 18 December, 2020
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
18.12.2020 DL-36 ssd (Via Video Conference) WPST 83 of 2020 Jiban Majhi and Anr.
Vs. The State of West Bengal and ors.
Mr. Partha Saratahi Bhattacharyya Mr. Saugata Mitra Ms. Ankita Dey ...for the petitioners.
Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee Mr. Somnath Naskar ...for the State.
The point which has canvassed on behalf of the petitioners is that despite the vacancy in the exempted category being noticed to be 21 at the date of the announcement for filling up the post, an examination was conducted and the names of successful candidates published without any successful candidate from the exempted category being indicated.
By the judgment and order impugned dated April 17, 2019 the tribunal has recorded "Since ..... the selection process .... was for candidates belonging to the non exempted category and the applicants belong to exempted category, question of declaring the result does not arise."
Upon reservation in several categories being introduced and the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1976 read with West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act of 1994 coming into effect, rosters have been published from time to time indicating the positions and how fitment would be made from among unreserved and reserved categories. From or about the 2 year 2001 the 100-point roster is invoked. Such roster indicates the positions and while filling up vacancies the positions have to be filled up in order.
Moreover, in terms of the said Act of 1976 and Act of 1994, when a candidate from any reserved category obtains more marks than the cut-off marks and more marks than the lowest qualifying candidate from the general category, such candidate is considered to be a general category candidate and the quota of the relevant reserved category is left unexhausted to such extent. In such a scenario, it is difficult to imagine how examinations are held for several categories and not for one category. The matter calls for detailed answers, including the production of the relevant register indicating due compliance with the 100-point roster from such time the 100-point roster came to be introduced in 2001. The previous experience of the court shows that in a number of the State Government departments these rosters have not been maintained, records are fudged and an arbitrary position is indicated, with the obvious intention of favouring some candidates on extraneous considerations. An affidavit must be filed by the State through the secretary in the concerned department and the relevant roster should be produced before the appropriate Bench when the matter appears next on January 4, 2021. It is imperative that no more time is to be afforded, so that creative skills are not brought into play. It is only upon the original roster being produced in court that further directions would be issued for filing the affidavit-in- reply.
(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.) 3