Back
1990 Supreme(Cal) 322
High Court Of Calcutta
Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee
AMITAVA MUKHERJEE - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. O. 16115 Of 1988
Decided On : 08/10/1990
ASHOK JAIN, GITA GUPTA, PHALGUNI SARKAR, PRANAB CHATTERJI
The principle of promissory estoppel can be applied to bar the State from denying employment to a candidate who has acted upon an offer of employment made by the State, even if the offer was subject to a condition that has been fulfilled.
Headnote:
WEST BENGAL SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (RESERVATION OF VACANCIES IN SERVICES AND POSTS) ACT, 1976 - SECTION 6 - APPOINTMENT - RESERVATION - BACKTRACKING FROM OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT - PROMISE ESTOPPEL - HELD, WHERE THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAS OFFERED EMPLOYMENT TO A CANDIDATE SUBJECT TO POLICE VERIFICATION AND SUCH VERIFICATION HAS BEEN DONE IN FAVOR OF THE CANDIDATE, THE STATE CANNOT BACKTRACK FROM THE SAID OFFER.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was selected for employment in the post of Assistant Mobilising Officer (AMO) subject to police verification of antecedents. After the verification was completed in his favor, the petitioner was not issued a formal letter of appointment. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue the appointment letter.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the respondents could not backtrack from their offer of employment to the petitioner since the police verification of his antecedents had been completed in his favor. The court relied on the principle of promissory estoppel, holding that the petitioner had acted upon the representation made by the respondents and could not be defeated of his hopes which had crystallized into rights.
Issues: Whether the respondents could backtrack from their offer of employment to the petitioner after the police verification of his antecedents had been completed in his favor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondents were estopped from denying the petitioner the appointment since they had made an offer of employment to him subject to police verification of his antecedents and such verification had been completed in his favor. The court relied on the principle of promissory estoppel, holding that the petitioner had acted upon the representation made by the respondents and could not be defeated of his hopes which had crystallized into rights.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to issue a formal letter of appointment to the petitioner within two months from the communication of the order.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition was moved on behalf of Amitava Mukherjee praying, inter alia, for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus upon the respondents directing them not to give any further effect to the Memo. No, WBFS/6510/rc-A/amo/84-85 dated October 31, l988, issued by the Director West Bengal Fire Service, being respondent No. 2 herein, which is annexure E to the writ petition.
( 2 ) BY the said communication, in reply to the letter demanding justice filed on behalf of the writ petitioner, the Director of West Bengal Fire Service informed Mr. Ashok Kumar Jana, learned Advocate for the writ petitioner, to the following effect: (A) Your client has given you incorrect as well as incomplete instruction in the matter of panel and appointment from the panel of Assistant Mobilising Officer under the Directorate of Fire Service. (B) There were total number of 23 vacancies in the said post of Assistant Mobilising Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AMO, for brevity) under the Director of west Bengal Fire Service and after written test and interview a panel was prepared strictly according to merit on the bus of the said test and interview. (C) The said panel was prepared with 25 candidates. to provide for possible dropouts. Out of the said 23 vacancies, 6 posts were reserved for scheduled casts/scheduled tribe candidates. (D) Appointments were given from the said panel strictly according to the position of the candidates in the panel. As your client's position in the panel was as one of the lowest mark holders, he did not get any appointment. As a matter of fact, whenever a panel is prepared, the same includes candidates more than vacancies to meet the situations arising from some candidates not, turning up or for any reason not being available. (E) Inclusion of name in the panel is not a guarantee for appointment. (F) Your client has and should have no justification for demanding appointment only because his name was included in the panel. Mr. Phalguni Sarkar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at the final hearing of the writ petition has placed the communication issued by the Director of Fire Service dated October 3, 1985, which is annexure A to the writ petition.
( 3 ) IT appears that the Director of West Bengal Fire Service informed the writ petitioner Amitava Mukherjee to the following effect:- "you have been selected for employment in the Directorate of West Bengal Fire Service for the post of A M. O subject to verification of antecedents by Police authorities and certain other conditions. As such blank verification of antecedents form in duplicate as sent to you for favour of properly filing in the same and early submission to this Directorate. Sd/- Illegible director west Bengal Fire Service. "
( 4 ) AFTER placing the aforesaid communication Mr. Sarkar submitted before this Court that the State Govt. having selected the writ petitioner for employment in the Directorate of Fire service for the post of A. M. O. subject to the verification of the antecedents by the police authorities, the State Government cannot take a different men is sought to be taken in the affidavit in opposition affirmed by the Deputy Director of Fire Service on February 20, 1989, and the supplementary affidavit affirmed on July 9, 1990.
( 5 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Sarkar, in view of the aforesaid communication already made to the writ petitioner on October 3, 1985, the only thing what remains before getting appointment was the police verification and singe police verification having regard to the antecedents having been made, there could not be any impediment on the part of the respondent to issue formal letter of appointment, which has not beck issued in the facts of the present case.
( 6 ) IN support of this branch of submission, Mr. Sarkar has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhim Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors, reported in (1981) 2scc 673, wherein V,r. Krishna Iyer
