Call letter for empanelled candidates for Veterinary Field Assistant positions did not create an absolute right to pre-service training for all candidates - Training only required for those selected for appointment based on merit and available vacancies.

The Petitioners being dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in OA No.1618 of 1997 have filed the present petition. There were thirty-seven applicants before the Tribunal. However, only ten have filed the present petition. The other applicants have not been made pro forma Respondents by the Petitioners. Therefore, on this ground alone the petition deserves to be dismissed.

2. Mr. Roy for the Petitioners seeks an adjournment to add the other applicants as pro forma Respondents. We are not inclined to grant any adjournment since this is a petition of the year 2008 and it has been pending a decision in this Court for more than four years. We have, therefore, proceeded on the merits of the case.

3. The Petitioners had all applied for employment as Veterinary Field Assistants/Field Assistants under the Animal Resources Development Department pursuant to the employment notice issued by the Department on 13th January, 1995. They appeared for the written examination and the interview. Indisputably they have all been empanelled. The Petitioners contend that in view of the call letter issued to them they ought to have been permitted to undergo pre- service training. The Petitioners further contend that it is only if they are successful in the pre-service training, then they can be considered for appointment as Veterinary Field Assistants/Field Assistants and they would then be a part of the common cadre of Livestock Development Assistants.

4. There is no dispute that the Petitioners were selected and empanelled in 1997. When they learnt that others in the panel had been sent for training, as indicated in the call letter of 13th January, 1995, they preferred OA-1618 of 1997 before the Tribunal. On considering the pleadings before it and the submissions of Counsel the Tribunal has found that seventy- seven candidates from the merit list were offered the pre- service training. This included fifty-five candidates from the unreserved category and seventeen candidates from the Scheduled Castes and five candidates from the Scheduled Tribe. The Tribunal has found that the lowest marks obtained by the unreserved candidate were 56.5 while the marks obtained by the Scheduled Caste candidate were 44.5. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the Respondents that only such candidates, who were found to be meritorious, were called for pre-service training after considering the number of vacancies available for employment. The Tribunal has, therefore, dismissed the application, filed by the Petitioners.

5. Mr. Roy the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that the call letter, which was issued to every Petitioner, indicates that after a candidate is selected, he would be required to undergo training mandatorily. Only on satisfactory completion of such training would the candidate be absorbed in service. According to Mr. Roy, every candidate, who is selected and empanelled must necessarily be permitted to undergo the pre-service training. He submits that there was no need to consider the number of vacancies at that stage. The learned Counsel submits that the words used in the call letter are unambiguous and leave no manner of doubt that every candidate who has been selected and empanelled is entitled to proceed for pre-service training irrespective of whether there were sufficient number of vacancies to be filled by the empanelled candidates. The next limb of argument of Mr. Roy is that different cut off marks were considered for different districts and, therefore, he contends that the recruitment is bad.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Majumder for the State submits that the Petitioners having participated in the selection process cannot now question the same merely because they have failed to be absorbed in service. He points out that on 30th September, 1996 a notice was issued by the Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services indicating that the panel of selected candidates was va