Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Cal) 1334

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.
Sanat Kumar Das – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.A. 20999 of 2005 With W.P.A. 8119 of 2006 With IA No. CAN 1 of 2015 (Old No. CAN 8765 of 2015), IA No. CAN 2 of 2017 (Old No. CAN 382 of 2017) (Not in File)
Decided on : 17-05-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Md. Nurezamman, Mr. Somen Bose
For the Respondent: Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Ms. Sangeeta Roy, Mr. Nikhil Kr. Gupta

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that recruitment processes must adhere to the legal framework in place at the time of vacancy and emphasized the necessity of public advertisement for fair selection.

Headnote:
Judicial Review - Employment - West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008; Sections 8, 10, 11, 12 - The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the new selection process under the 2008 Act, which supersedes previous rules, and highlighted the importance of following proper procedures in recruitment to ensure fairness and compliance with constitutional provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the District Inspector of Schools that recast the selection panel for a Group D post in a Madrasah, arguing that the process violated natural justice and that he should be placed at the top of the panel based on an earlier interview.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the selection process was vitiated due to non-compliance with legal requirements, including the failure to publish an advertisement for the post, and determined that the new 2008 Act governed the filling of the vacancy.
Issues: Whether the selection process for the Group D post was valid given the changes in law and the lack of advertisement for the position.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the selection process must comply with the law in effect at the time of the vacancy's creation, and since the new Act had come into force, the process must adhere to its provisions.
Result: The order of the District Inspector of Schools was quashed, and the petitioner's request to be placed at the top of the panel was denied.

JUDGMENT :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The writ petitioner in W.P.A. 8119 of 2006 has prayed for setting aside the order of the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Birbhum dated September 26, 2005 and for cancellation of the candidature of Sanat Das i.e., the 6th respondent and to approve the panel prepared on the basis of interview held on 28.08.2002 by placing the writ petitioner i.e., the 2nd empanelled candidate at the top of the panel.

2. Facts giving rise to this writ petition in a nutshell are as follows-

3. Post of Group D (Peon) under the Scheduled Caste category was declared vacant at Labpur Junior High Madrasah (for short “the Madrasah”). After obtaining prior permission to fill up the said vacancy, the competent authority of the Madrasah decided to conduct the selection process for filling up the said vacancy. Names of the eligible candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Petitioner approached the Writ Court with a prayer to allow him to participate in the selection process and a co-ordinate bench by an order dated 30.08.2001 in WP No. 12289(W) of 2001, allowed the petitioner to participate in the said interview. Petitioner participated in the interview held on 28.08.2002. The 6th respondent was placed in the first position of the panel, the writ petitioner was placed in the 2nd position and one Tapas Kumar Bagdi i.e., the 7th respondent was placed in the 3rd position of the panel. Pursuant to an order passed in W.P. No. 11451(W) of 2005 at the instance of the 7th respondent, the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Birbhum (for short “the DI”) passed the order dated 26.09.2005, directing the authority of the Madrasah to recast the panel in order of merit keeping the 7th respondent in the 1st position and deleting the names of the 6th respondent and the writ petitioner herein.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order of the DI dated 26.09.2005 the 2nd empanelled candidate has approached this Court.

5. The learned advocate for the petitioner attacked the impugned order on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice by submitting that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the writ petitioner before directing deletion of his name from the panel. He contended that the name of the 6th respondent has to be struck off from the panel as he appeared in the interview held on 28.08.2002 by totally suppressing the order dated 14.09.2001 dismissing the writ petition filed by the 6th respondent. He, thus, submitted that the respondent authorities should be directed to approve the panel prepared on the basis of the interview dated 28.08.2002 by placing the writ petitioner in the 1st position in the panel.

6. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Additional Government Pleader seriously disputed the contentions of the writ petitioner. He contended that after issuance of the prior permission by the D.I., the authority of the Madrasah did not publish any advertisement for the said post as per the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Excise Superintendent vs. K.N. Visweshwara Rao and others reported at (1996) 6 SCC 216. He submitted that the issue regarding recasting of panel and approval of the panel pursuant to the selection process initiated by the Madrasah has become academic in view of coming into force of The West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008 (for short “the 2008 Act”) and the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Recruitment (Selection and Recommendation of persons for Appointment and Transfer to the posts of Teacher and non-teaching Staff) Rules, 2010 (for short “the 2010 Rules”). He submitted that after coming into force of the 2008 Act, DI has got only the power to approve appointment after the recommendation is made by the Commission and the Managing Committee of the Madrasah is denuded of its power to prepare or even recast the panel. He further submitted that the vires of Sections 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the 2008 Act and the 2010 Rules was challenged in the case of SK. Mohd. Ra