Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Mr. Basak, learned advocate for the respondent no. 1, adopted the submissions of Mr. Banerjee and submitted that the petitioner having failed to establish infringement of her legal right, the writ petition is not maintainable. He too prayed for dismissal thereof.

8. In reply, Mr. Bhattacharya disputed that the post of process server belongs to Group D category. According to him, having regard to the pay scale an incumbent on the post of process server is entitled to together with the grade pay, the post of process server is a Group C post. Reference was made to the West Bengal Services Revision of Pay and Allowances Rules, 2009 (hereafter ROPA Rules) in this behalf. He further contended that the petitioner was neither made aware of the decision of the Committee of Registrars dated January 6, 2011 nor could one imagine upon perusal of the list of candidates found fit to appear in the personality test and the call letter that those who had not even applied for the post of process server would be considered along with those who did make an application therefor. He submitted that the decisions cited by Mr. Banerjee were not at all relevant for deciding the issue involved in the writ petition and hence prayed for relief in terms of the prayers therein.

11. Part C of the ROPA Rules shows the correspondence between the existing scales and the revised scales of pay. Existing pay structure of Rs.3150-80-3390-90-4380-100- 5680 in terms of the revised pay structure is in Pay Band (PB) - 2, the PB scale is Rs.5400-25200 and grade pay is Rs.2,300/-.

12.It would be evident from the employment notification dated July 06, 2011 that the scale of pay of process server has been mentioned there as Rs. 5400/- to Rs. 25200/- with grade pay of Rs. 2,600/-. Although the grade pay for an incumbent on the post of process server has since been reduced from Rs.2600/- to Rs.2300/-, as it appears from employment notification dated February 8, 2013 issued by the office of the District Judge, Murshidabad, there can be no two opinions that while the post of process server carries pay structure in PB 2 with grade pay of Rs. 2,300/- or above (upto at least Rs. 2,600/-), the pay structure for Group D staff mentioned in the employment notification dated July 6, 2011 is in PB 1 and grade pay is less than Rs.1,900/-. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the post of process server is a Group C post.

13. It is clear on a bare perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the Committee of Registrars dated January 6, 2011 that number of applications had been received from candidates who had applied for recruitment to Group D posts without specifying whether they aspire for appointment either as peon or nightguard or farash. In the absence of such specification, those candidates could have been considered only for the vacancies on the posts of peon/nightguard/farash. However, not having applied for the post of process server, the said candidates could not have been considered for appointment in the vacancies on such post. It passes my comprehension as to how the Committee of Registrars could allow clubbing together of the candidates (including the petitioner) who had applied for the post of process server (Sl. No. 7 in the employment notification in question) with those who had applied for appointment on Group D posts (Sl. No. 8 in the same employment notification), which meant the posts of peon/nightguard/farash. The Committee of Registrars, furthermore, created a mess by adopting the resolution in respect of the second query of the District Recruitment Authority. Whether scales of pay of process server and peon/nightguard/farash would be different or not, they ought to have referred to the ROPA Rules instead of leaving it to the members of the District Recruitment Committee to decide what should be the pay scales. The consequence was obvious, - the post of process server was treated as a Group D post by the District Recruitment Committee, although it was not so. Be that as it may, if a candidate despite being eligible in terms of the criteria mentioned in the employment notification is entitled to apply for two distinct posts but applies for one post, it signifies that he is not interested to have an appointment on the other post. I wonder how, in the circumstances, the Committee of Registrars could allow the District Recruitment Authority to consider those candidates for appointment in the vacancies on the post of process server, when they themselves had chosen to compete for the Group D posts only. The final panel prepared for recruitment to the post of process server ought not to have been drawn by including in it candidates who had not applied for appointment on such post. It was, therefore, not fair and proper to sideline the petitioner and thereby keep her out of the arena of consideration for immediate appointment to any of the 4 unreserved vacancies.

(underlining for emphasis by me)

17. It is the petitioner's claim that she was neither aware of the decision of the Committee of Registrars adopted in the meeting dated January 6, 2011 nor could she imagine what was in the minds of the members of the District Recruitment Authority while processing the applications received from the candidates aspiring for public employment. This claim could not be disproved by the respondents by demonstrating that she was made aware of the same. Merely because the list of successful candidates prepared on the basis of the written examination indicated that the same was for recruitment on the posts of process server as well as peon/nightguard/farash and the call letter issued in favour of the petitioner also indicated to the same effect, it is difficult to accept the contention of Mr. Banerjee that those who had not applied for the post of process server but were also being considered for appointment on such posts could have been ascertained on a bare perusal of such list/call letter. The list reflects nothing but the names of candidates, arranged in alphabetical order, who were successful in the written examination, without any indication as to who applied for which post. I have noticed from the final panel that those who applied for appointment on Group D posts had roll nos. such as 'GD ...', whereas those who applied for appointment on the posts of process server had roll nos. such as 'PS ...'. The roll nos. of the successful candidates were also not indicated in the list of candidates eligible to take the personality test, which could have given an impression as to who had applied for which post. Similarly, the call letter appears to have been issued in a printed format to all the candidates who successfully acquitted themselves in the written examination for further appearance in the personality test. Although the petitioner had applied for appointment in the post of process server, the alternatives peon/nightguard/farash were not struck off. It is absolutely impossible for a person of reasonable prudence to construe such list/call letter as indicative of the minds of the members of the District Recruitment Authority to allow non- applicants for appointment on the post of process server to be considered for such post. The stand of the respondents 2 to 5 that the petitioner took a chance of selection, despite being aware that those who had not applied for appointment on the post of process server were being considered therefor, cannot thus be accepted.