SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(SC) 1608

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K. THAKKER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE
D.K. JAIN
Tridip Kumar Dingal and others with Ujjal Maity and another with Muksudur Rahman & Others
Versus
State of West Bengal and others with Kalyan Bagchi & Others
Civil Appeal Nos. 6444 of 2008, 6449, 6450-6452, 6453-6454 of 2008
Decided On: 04-11-2008

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appearing Parties:Jaideep Gupta, S.B. Sanyal, Tarun Kr. Roy, Sr. Advocates, Ashok Mathur, Sanjeev Sen, Partha Sil, Ghanshyam Joshi, R.K. Gupta, S.K. Gupta A.N. Baradiyar, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Pijush K. Roy, Sunil Kumar Verma, Tara Chandra Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Kishan Datta, S.K. Bhattacharya, B.P. Yadav, Mrs. Sarla Chandra, N. Ganpathy, Mrinal Kanti Mandal, Snehasish Mukherjee, Debapriya Samanta, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Dr. Kailash Chand, Parijat Sinha, Ms. Reshmik Rea Sinha, S.C. Ghosh, Ms. D.N. Ray and Mrs. Sumita Ray, Advocates.

Headnote:A) Constitution of India, Article 14 and 16:- Where the petitioner has not taken the plea before High Court or Tribunal in the first round of litigation or taken quick action in the second round of litigation, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise the plea of interview marks cannot be more than 15 % qualifying marks. (Para 35)

       B) Constitution of India, Article 14 and 16:-In preparation of fresh list, the interest of candidates who have already completed 10 years of service is protected in the same line the High Court and Tribunal did. (Para 36, 43. 46 and 52)

       C) Constitution of India, Article 14 and 16, 226:- Where the written examination was conducted as an elimination test, the finding of the Tribunal that selection was flawed has reached finality and the order of the High Court directing preparation of fresh list on the basis of the written test and oral interview was held to be not illegal. (Para 34)

Judgment:-

C.K. Thakker, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present appeals have been instituted by the appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Calcutta on August 11, 2003 in WPSR No. 630 of 2002 and companion matters and an order, dated January 06, 2005 in CAP No. 1006 of 2004 and cognate petitions.

3. The case has a checkered history. In early nineties of the last century, the Department of Health & Family Welfare, State of West Bengal suffered acute shortage and non-availability of adequate member of Medical Technologists. In their absence, laboratory and investigation work in Government Hospitals, Laboratories, Medical Colleges, Primary Health Centres, Blood Banks, etc. could not be performed satisfactorily. The Government was worrying as to distress and agony of patients visiting hospitals and dispensaries. It, therefore, took an initiative to fill up requisite number of vacancies of Medical Technologists by taking up the matter with the Employment Exchange. On October 5, 1993, the Assistant Director of Health Services (Administration) issued a Memo to the Director of Employment Exchange for sponsoring names of candidates for the post of Medical Technologist (Laboratory) having requisite qualification of Madhyamik (Secondary)/Higher Secondary with Science along with a certificate of Laboratory Technology from a recognized University or Institution. The post was in the basic pay of Rs.1040-1920 with other admissible allowances. It was stated that the candidates were required to work in any District of West Bengal.

4. Pursuant to the above Memo and receipt of names from Employment Exchange, a written examination was held on August 20, 1995. A list of 1070 candidates was published who had cleared the examination. On August 1, 1996, oral interview of the candidates who had cleared written examination was taken and provisional select list was prepared which was published on December 18, 1998. The empanelment was made on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates at oral interview.

5. The candidates who could not get entry in the select list prepared by the authorities on the basis of marks obtained at oral interview, approached West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta by instituting Original Application No. 1023 of 1999. It was contended by them that the authorities had committed an error of law in totally ignoring the marks obtained by candidates at written examination and panel was prepared only on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates at oral interview which was illegal and contrary to law. Preparation of panel, therefore, was arbitrary, unreasonable and was liable to be set aside. Interim order was passed by the Tribunal on April 9, 1999 granting liberty to the authorities to make appointment of candidates selected and empanelled subject to the result in Original Application. Liberty was also granted to the parties to move the Tribunal for variation, vacation or modification of the order.

6. Beingaggrieved by the interim order dated April 9, 1999 granting liberty to the authorities to make appointment subject to final outcome of the proceedings, the appellants approached the High Court of Calcutta by filing WPST No. 199 of 1999 contending that they had been treated with discrimination and different interim orders were passed in different matters. The petition was disposed of by the High Court by issuing certain directions. The Tribunal was requested to dispose of the main matter expeditiously preferably before January 15, 2000.

7. By judgment and order dated June 30, 2000, main matter was disposed of by the Tribunal. Merit list which was prepared on the basis of marks obtained by candidates at oral interview was set aside and a direction was issued by the Tribunal to prepare fresh merit list of candidates by adding the marks obtained by them in both (i) written examination, and (ii) oral interview, excluding those who were already in service. It was observed









































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top