Back
2016 Supreme(Cal) 189
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SANJIB BANERJEE, J.
CHANDRA KANTA GANGULI - Appellant
Vs.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS - Respondent
WP 6371 (W) of 2016 WITH WP 6372 (W) of 2016
Decided on : 20-05-2016
For the Petitioners: Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Sr Adv., Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta, Adv., Mr. Bikram Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Arkadeb Biswas, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Sr Adv., Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee, Adv.
The recruitment process for civic police volunteers in 2013 was not conducted in accordance with the government orders and guidelines, and the interviews were not conducted in a fair and transparent manner. The eligibility criteria were not met by most of the selected candidates, and the recruitment drive was designed to subvert due process and confer benefits on a pre-selected few.
Headnote:
CIVIC POLICE VOLUNTEERS RECRUITMENT - SHAM PROCESS - SELECTION CRITERIA - JUDICIAL REVIEW - CONSTITUTIONAL NORMS - ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA - RATIONAL SCHEME - OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT - TRANSPARENCY - TAXPAYERS' MONEY - SYSTEMIC MALAISE - COMMITTEE TO REVIEW RECRUITMENT PROCESS - SAFEGUARDS FOR FUTURE RECRUITMENT - OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT - SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT - VALIDITY OF ENGAGEMENTS - FRESH RECRUITMENT PROCESS - OVER-AGED PETITIONERS - RETENTION OF INTERVIEW RECORDS IN COURT ARCHIVES.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, unemployed young residents of West Bengal, challenged the sham process undertaken for the engagement of civic police volunteers in West Bengal Police in 2013, alleging that the selection process was a perfunctory interview and that no efficiency or measurement tests were conducted as per the government orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the interviews were not conducted and a charade of a process was gone through and falsely reflected in official records. The court held that the entire process was faulty and designed to subvert due process, with no checks in place to ensure that deserving candidates were selected.
Issues: 1. Whether the selection process for civic police volunteers in 2013 was conducted in accordance with the government orders and guidelines? 2. Whether the interviews were conducted in a fair and transparent manner? 3. Whether the eligibility criteria were met by the selected candidates? 4. Whether the recruitment drive was designed to subvert due process and confer benefits on a pre-selected few?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the selection process for civic police volunteers in 2013 was not conducted in accordance with the government orders and guidelines, as the interviews were not conducted and a charade of a process was gone through. 2. The court held that the interviews were not conducted in a fair and transparent manner, as it was inconceivable that so many candidates could be interviewed on the same day and the interview sheets were signed by the members of the interview board on the same day that they had claimed to have conducted the interview. 3. The court held that the eligibility criteria were not met by most of the selected candidates, as the records produced revealed that the educational qualifications of 1351 candidates could not have been assessed in course of a single working day. 4. The court held that the recruitment drive was designed to subvert due process and confer benefits on a pre-selected few, as there was no evidence of any agency vested with the authority of exercising any supervision over the selection process or the adherence to the eligibility criteria.
Final Decision: 1. The court set aside the entire process of the 2013 recruitment of civic police volunteers at the two police stations in question. 2. The court directed the State to undertake a fresh recruitment drive afresh upon sufficient checks and balances being put in place to ensure the sanctity of the process. 3. The court constituted a committee to look into the process of the 2013 recruitment of civic police volunteers all over the State and annul such of the engagements that may have been brought about in derogation of the eligibility criteria and without actually the candidates being interviewed in a reasonable process. 4. The court declared that the engagements of civic police volunteers under the 2013 recruitment process shall not be valid after the end of the calendar year.
SANJIB BANERJEE, J.
The petitioners are unemployed young residents of this State who complain of a sham process being undertaken for engagement of civic police volunteers in West Bengal Police in year 2013. The two matters pertain to the police stations of Barikul and Sarenga in district Bankura.
2. The charges in both petitions are similar. Pursuant to a notification of February 28, 2013, a recruitment drive was undertaken to enroll 1,30,000 civic police volunteers on temporary basis. The avowed purpose therefore was “to supplement the mainstream policing on special occasions such as festivals and emergent situations for traffic management, providing routine guarding duties for short duration deployment” and the like. The notification of February 28, 2013 contemplated ten days’ training to be imparted to the recruited volunteers and an honourarium of Rs.141.80p to each volunteer per day. The volunteers were to be provided two sets of uniforms and prior government approval would be required before actual deployment. The volunteers were to be recruited on the basis of the guidelines in a government order of September 26, 2011.
3. The guidelines for eligibility, mode of induction, training, duties and termination were indicated in the government order of September 26, 2011. The eligibility criteria were as follows:
“I. Resident of the area under the police station where they will be deployed.
II. Age between 20 to 30 years, (as on 1st January of the respective year of enrolment)
III. Should have passed Madhyamik standard Examination.
IV. Should have represented at least School/Club level sports.
V. Should have experience as NCC Cadet/Boy Scouts/NSS Guide/Civil Defence Volunteers etc.
VI. Should not have any criminal record against them in any police station.
VII. Should be medically fit.”
4. The order of September 26, 2011 pertained to civic police volunteers in the commission rates of Howrah and Asansol-Durgapur, but the same guidelines other than clause A-4 were made applicable throughout the State by the order of February 28, 2013. A connected memorandum of March 1, 2013 was issued by the Special Inspector General of Police (HQ) West Bengal, inter alia, to all district Superintendents of Police and Commissioners of Police, excluding Kolkata. The memorandum of March 1, 2013 advised the addressees to “take immediate steps to recruit the specified number of civic police volunteers as per the Government order and confirm West Bengal Police Directorate at the earliest …” The volunteers were to be recruited in different districts, commission rates and for GRP units in the manner indicated in a table that formed a part of the memorandum of March 1, 2013. South 24 Parganas, among the districts, was to have the maximum of 10,400 volunteers. Bankura was allotted 5,100 volunteers.
5. The petitioners claim that in terms of the relevant government orders, applications were invited for civic police volunteers all over the State including in Bankura. The applications were to be submitted to the local police stations. According to the petitioners, they were told that there would be a physical efficiency test and a physical measurement test followed by an interview and a final list of chosen volunteers would be published thereafter. The petitioners allege that no efficiency or measurement tests were conducted, but the petitioners received call letters to appear before an interview board.
6. The petitioners maintain that they were not subjected to any interview on the day that they were called therefore. The petitioners were not asked any questions but were required to submit photocopies of their identity cards and their call letters. According to the petitioners, later on the same day on which their interviews were scheduled, lists were published containing the names of the successful candidates and the petitioners’ names did not figure therein.
7. These petitions were received on April 18, 2016 when no order was passed since a selection process
