Back
2023 Supreme(Cal) 801
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
DEBANGSU BASAK, MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, JJ.
Indrajit Tambuli – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & ors. – Respondents
WP.ST 325 of 2010
Decided on : 07-08-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Subir Sanyal, Advocate, Mr. Snehasis Jana, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Somnath Ganguli, Ld. AGP, Mr. Balarko Sen, Mr. Swarup Paul, Advocate, Mr. Guru Saday Dutta, Advocate, Mr. Anish Roy, Advocate, Mr. Abhrotosh Mazumder, Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, Mr. Subham Ghosh, Advocate
Fraud must be pleaded and established on the basis of the pleadings.
Headnote:
RECRUITMENT - CANCELLATION OF SELECTION PROCESS - SELECTION PROCESS COMMENCED IN 2007 - NO PUBLIC ADVERTISEMENT - SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT TO RECRUITMENT RULES AND PROCEDURES - APPOINTMENT OF SELECTED CANDIDATES - SUPREME COURT DIRECTED APPOINTMENT OF SIX CANDIDATES - FRAUD ALLEGED BY OTHER CANDIDATES - NO PLEADINGS OR EVIDENCE OF FRAUD - DISMISSAL OF WRIT PETITION.
Fact of the Case:
A selection process for the post of Assistant Investigator was initiated in 2007. The petitioners and other candidates participated in the selection process. The selection was limited to sponsored candidates but during the process, both sponsored and non-sponsored candidates were considered. No public advertisement was issued for the selection process. Due to litigation, the selection was not concluded. The authorities cancelled the selection process in 2008. The petitioners challenged the cancellation before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, which upheld the authorities' decision. The petitioners then filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court. The coordinate bench set aside the Tribunal's order and directed the authorities to appoint the petitioners. The State of West Bengal filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court, which disposed of the petition by directing the State to appoint six candidates from the selection process and then follow the new rules for the remaining vacancies.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court noted that the selection process was initiated in 2007 without a public advertisement. The selection was limited to sponsored candidates but during the process, both sponsored and non-sponsored candidates were considered. The selection was not concluded due to litigation and the authorities cancelled the process in 2008. The petitioners challenged the cancellation before the Tribunal, which upheld the authorities' decision. The petitioners then filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court. The coordinate bench set aside the Tribunal's order and directed the authorities to appoint the petitioners. The State of West Bengal filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court, which disposed of the petition by directing the State to appoint six candidates from the selection process and then follow the new rules for the remaining vacancies.
Issues: 1. Whether the selection process was valid despite the lack of a public advertisement? 2. Whether the subsequent amendment to the Recruitment Rules and Procedures affected the selection process? 3. Whether the Supreme Court's order directing the appointment of six candidates was obtained by fraud?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the selection process was not valid as it was initiated without a public advertisement. 2. The High Court held that the subsequent amendment to the Recruitment Rules and Procedures did not affect the selection process as it was not intended to disturb the selection already undertaken. 3. The High Court held that the allegation of fraud in obtaining the Supreme Court's order was not supported by any pleadings or evidence and therefore could not be considered.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition without any order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
1. The writ petition is directed against an order dated April 4, 2010 passed in three Original Applications which were disposed of by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal.
2. The writ petitioners here were the original applicants in O.A.9423 of 2008 before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal.
3. Two other Original Applications being O.A.6633 of 2008 and O.A.9630 of 2008 were also disposed of by the impugned order dated April 5, 2010.
4. Two writ petitions were filed against the impugned order dated April 5, 2010. One is the present writ petition. The other is the WPST 304 of 2010.
5. The other writ petition being WPST 304 of 2010 was disposed of by the judgment and order dated February 11, 2016 passed by the coordinate Bench. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by an order dated September 1, 2017 passed in Civil Appeal No.1113 of 2017 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.25755 of 2016 (The State of West Bengal & ors. vs. Debasis Das & ors.) disposed of the Special Leave Petition directed against the judgment and order dated February 11, 2016.
6. The three original applications assailed a decision taken by the authorities dated June 19, 2008 cancelling a selection process for the post of Assistant Investigator under Bureau of Applied Economics & Statistics, Government of West Bengal.
7. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated April 5, 2010 concurred with the view of the authorities as enshrined in the writing dated June 19, 2008.
8. As noted above, the impugned order of the Tribunal dated April 5, 2010, received consideration by the coordinate Bench in a separate writ petition being W.P.S.T.304 of 2010 which was disposed of by the judgment and order dated February 11, 2016. By such judgment and order dated February 11, 2016, the coordinate Bench was pleased to set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and quashed the order dated June 19, 2008 of the department. The coordinate Bench directed the respondent authorities to consider the appointment of the writ petitioners therein in accordance with the merit list as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one month from the date of availing of the certified copy of the order, if the posts were not filled up in the concerned recruitment year.
9. State of West Bengal carried a Special Leave Petition being Special Leave Petition (C) No.25755 of 2016 against the judgment and order dated February 11, 2016 of the co-ordinate Bench, which was disposed of by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.111139 of 2017 on September 1, 2017. The relevant portion of the order dated September 1, 2017 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is as follows:-
“2. The State of West Bengal is before this Court, aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court of Calcutta dated 11.02.2016 in W.P.S.T. No.304 of 2010. The issue pertains to selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Investigator in the Bureau of Applied Economics and Statistics.
3. There is a chequered history for the case. The selection process, as a matter of fact, commenced by issuing a Notification on 16.01.2007. On account of certain litigations, the selection could not be finalized. In between, there was an amendment to the Recruitment Rules and procedures. It is the case of the writ petitioners, who were six in number, before the High Court that they have been selected for appointment and any subsequent change in the rules should not affect their prospects.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the State of West Bengal has brought to our notice that there are 75 vacant posts and on account of litigations for the last 10 years, the posts could not be filled up.
5. Having regard to the fact that the selection has been in litigation for quite long and having regard to the fact that only six of them got affected on account of the cancellation of selection, we are of the view that it is only in the interest of equity, justice and fairness that the State appoints those six people in furtherance of the s
