Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Amrita Sinha, J.
Ankur Bhattacharya & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State Of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.A. No. 8462 of 2020
Decided On : 13-01-2021
Illegal Recruitment - Fast Track Courts - The court discussed the Government Orders dated 14th September, 2001 and 27th November, 2001, which guide the engagement of support staff in Fast Track Courts. The court highlighted that the recruitment policy does not permit unemployed youths to participate in the recruitment process for the post of Peshkar, and there is a clear restriction on direct recruitment for the upper division level clerical post. The court found the employment notification to be illegal and unsustainable in law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners applied for appointment as Peshkar (Bench Clerk) in the Fast Track Courts but were not issued appointment letters despite being selected. They sought reasons for non-issuance of the letters and subsequently filed a writ petition for appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recruitment process was void ab initio as it did not comply with the government guidelines, and therefore, no relief could be granted to the petitioners. The writ petition was dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of the recruitment process for the post of Peshkar in the Fast Track Courts, and whether the petitioners had acquired any right for appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the recruitment process was illegal and unsustainable in law as it did not comply with the government guidelines, and the petitioners could not have acquired any right for appointment in a void recruitment process.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to the petitioners.
JUDGMENT
Amrita Sinha, J. - The petitioners pray for giving appointment to them in the vacant posts of Peshkar (Bench Clerk) in the Fast Track Courts in the Hooghly Judgeship.
2. In response to the employment notification no. 1/2015 dated 30th April, 2015 the petitioners applied for being recruited in the post of Peshkar (Bench Clerk) in the Fast Track Court of the Hooghly Judgeship. Initially the advertisement was made in respect of two sanctioned posts, but later on, by way of a corrigendum, the sanctioned posts were enhanced to three. The employment was to be given on ad hoc basis, temporary and contractual in nature.
3. The petitioners participated in the recruitment process and were eligible for appointment. The name of the petitioners appeared in the list of selected candidates. It was notified on 22nd September, 2015 that the selected candidates will be intimated by post and/or by telephonic message to receive the appointment letters in person from the office of the District Judge, English Department, Hooghly.
4. In spite of being selected for appointment no appointment letter was issued in their favour. The petitioners made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking reasons for non-issuance of the letter of appointment. The query of the petitioners was replied by the Public Information Officer, thereby intimating, that the office of the District Judge, Hooghly has sought approval of the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet, vide office memo dated 21st September, 2015, but the matter was pending before the Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal and no direction from the Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal has been received till date. The petitioners thereafter made a representation on 10th September, 2020 followed by a notice demanding justice through their learned advocate on 21st September, 2020.
5. According to the petitioners as they were successful in the selection process necessary direction may be passed upon the recruiting authority for issuance of appointment letter in their favour.
6. Referring to the report which has been filed by the respondents the petitioners submit that the District Judge is the appropriate authority to issue the letter of appointment in their favour. Reference has been made to the communication dated 23rd December, 2019 written by the Joint Secretary, Judicial Department to the District Judge, Hooghly that the matter of engagement of support staff in respect of the Fast Track Courts are guided by the Circular no. 6716-J dated 14th September, 2001 issued by the Judicial Department and the relevant District Judge is the authority for such engagement, subject to the observation of the norms as envisaged therein.
7. The petitioners also refer to the letter dated 15th January, 2020 issued by the District Judge, Hooghly to the Joint Secretary, Judicial Department seeking approval of the appointment of the selected candidates in various posts.
8. In reply to the stand taken by the respondents in their affidavit-inopposition that the panel prepared on 22nd September, 2015 has lost its validity and the petitioners do not have any locus standi to claim appointment as the post in question is purely ad hoc, temporary and contractual, the petitioners submit that the respondent authorities are not entitled to improve or supplement their case by assigning fresh reasons by way of affidavit. Reliance has been placed on the decision delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohinder Singh Gill -vs- Chief Election Commissioner & Ors., (1978) AIR SC 851 .
9. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents refers to the memo no. 7196/F(P) dated 2nd July, 2010 issued by the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Audit Branch relating to the instructions regarding preparation, cancellation, appointment out of panels for filling up of the non-PSC posts, wherein it has been mentioned that the selection process is initiated for a particular number
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
