Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Biswanath Somadder, J.
Moumita Sen and others - Petitioners
Versus
Public Service Commission, West Bengal and others - Respondents
W.P. No. 11319 (W) of 2015
Decided On : 29-07-2015
For the Petitioners:Bidyut Kiran Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate, Ujjal Kumar Bhattacharya, Jayanta Kumar Datta and Gangaprasad Mukherjee, Advocates
For the State :Chaitali Bhattacharyya and Sukla Das Chandra, Advocates
For the Respondent No. 1:Pradip Kumar Roy and Shraboni Sarkar, Advocates
For the Respondent No. 4:Jaydip Kar, Sr. Advocate and Siddhartha Banerjee, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 5:Anjan Bhattacharya, Advocate
The Court reiterated the principles laid down in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3)'s case regarding the rigid timetable for appointment to the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) by direct recruitment and held that the High Court Administration's failure to adhere to the same resulted in the irregular reduction of anticipated vacancies and the consequent denial of appointment to eligible candidates.
Headnote:
WEST BENGAL JUDICIAL SERVICE EXAMINATION - VACANCY POSITION - ANTICIPATED VACANCIES - REDUCTION - VALIDITY - SELECTION PROCESS - IRREGULARITY - APPOINTMENT - ELIGIBILITY - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who participated in the West Bengal Judicial Service Examination, 2014, challenged the reduction of anticipated vacancies from 25 to 15, which resulted in them not being able to join judicial service despite their names being recommended by the Public Service Commission, West Bengal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the reduction of anticipated vacancies was irregular and in violation of the rigid timetable laid down by the Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3)'s case. The Court held that the High Court Administration failed to declare the final select list by 1st November, 2014, as mandated, and that it was not open for them to subsequently reduce the number of anticipated vacancies.
Issues: 1. Whether the reduction of anticipated vacancies from 25 to 15 was valid. 2. Whether there was any irregularity in the selection process which resulted in the petitioners not being able to join judicial service. 3. Whether the petitioners were eligible for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate etc.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the reduction of anticipated vacancies was irregular and in violation of the rigid timetable laid down by the Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3)'s case. 2. The Court held that the High Court Administration failed to declare the final select list by 1st November, 2014, as mandated, and that it was not open for them to subsequently reduce the number of anticipated vacancies. 3. The Court held that the petitioners were eligible for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate etc., based on their performance in the West Bengal Judicial Service Examination, 2014, and that they should be treated as wait-listed against the 10 anticipated vacancies on account of promotions due.
Final Decision: The Court directed the High Court Administration to treat the eligible petitioners along with other eligible candidates as wait-listed against the 10 anticipated vacancies on account of promotions due.
Biswanath Somadder, J.
This writ petition has been filed by four individuals who participated in a recruitment process conducted by the Public Service Commission, West Bengal. They sat in the West Bengal Judicial Service Examination, 2014, on the basis of an advertisement bearing no. 04/2014 issued by the Public Service Commission, West Bengal. In the said advertisement, the vacancy position was declared as follows:
"Vacancy: Existing - 39 & Anticipated - 25 = 64 [Unreserved - 42, SC - 06, ST - 03, BC Category A - 06, BC Category B - 05, PWD - 02]."
2. A select list of 117 candidates who qualified on the basis of the results of the West Bengal Judicial Service Examination, 2014 was announced by the Public Service Commission, West Bengal, on 24th December, 2014. As per record, the petitioner no.1 - Moumita Sen - was placed under serial no.38; the petitioner no.2 - Chitrita Roy - was placed under serial no.44; the petitioner no.3 - Ankan Basu - was placed under serial no.36; and the petitioner no.4 - Jahangir Alam Dewan - was placed under serial no.87. The Public Service Commission, West Bengal, also separately published lists of 25 candidates who were recommended against unreserved clear vacancies as also a list of 24 candidates who were recommended against anticipated vacancies (both reserved and unreserved). The names of the petitioners figure in the list of candidates recommended for appointment against anticipated vacancies. Moumita Sen is placed under serial no.11; Chitrita Roy is placed under serial no.17; Ankan Basu is placed under serial no.9; and Jahangir Alam Dewan is placed under serial no.19.
3. The petitioners received letters, all dated 8th January, 2015, from the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Judicial Department, informing them individually that their names had been recommended by the Public Service Commission, West Bengal, for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate etc. on the basis of the results of the West Bengal Judicial Service Examination, 2014. They were requested to appear before the said authority on a particular date and time with all original certificates and testimonials and other documents, as stated in the said letter dated 8th January, 2015. Subsequently, they were also asked to appear before a Medical Board, in terms of several letters dated 16th March, 2015, issued by the Deputy Director of Health Services (MERT), Government of West Bengal, Directorate of Health Services. However, on 8th May, 2015, when the Public Service Commission, West Bengal, published a list of candidates recommended for appointment against confirmed/cleared vacancies in the West Bengal Judicial Service on the basis of the results of the West Bengal Judicial Service Examination, 2014, they did not find their names in the said list, which prompted them to file the instant writ petition.
4. When the matter was initially taken up for consideration, a limited ad interim order was passed on 5th June, 2015, which, however, stood vacated by a subsequent order dated 23rd June, 2015. Thereafter, this matter has been heard at length on the basis of the pleadings and documents on record and as produced by the parties.
5. It is the specific case of the petitioners that in terms of the advertisement bearing no. 04/2014, the vacancy position ought to have been 39 + 25 = 64. This number could not have been reduced at a subsequent stage, under any circumstances. By reducing the anticipated vacancies from 25 to 15, the petitioners have been deprived from joining judicial service, although they were otherwise successful.
6. A question that falls for consideration, therefore, is whether there has been any irregularity in the selection process which has resulted in the petitioners not being able to join judicial service in spite of their names being recommended by the Public Service Commission, West Bengal, for appointment, particularly after issuance of the letter dated 8th Janu
