Timeliness in litigation and treating similarly situated individuals equally underscores rights in recruitment processes.

JUDGMENT : 

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner participated in the process of recruitment being conducted for appointment of Inspector of Drugs under the Directorate of Drug Control. The advertisement in this connection was issued on 22.02.2016.

3. The petitioner has filed some applications under R.T.I from which he has discovered that he had been awarded total 81 marks. Relying upon this information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 the petitioner has moved the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (S.A.T) by filing O.A. 637 of 2021 seeking a direction that he should be appointed pursuant to the said recruitment process.

4. Before the Tribunal he placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in the case of Avijit Das & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. in W.P.S.T. 120 of 2018. The Division Bench vide its order dated 28.01.2020 had directed the authorities to appoint the petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4 of the said writ petition. The case of the present writ petitioner before the Tribunal is that the marks which were obtained by the present petitioner was more than the three persons, petitioners in W.P.S.T. 120 of 2018 in respect of whom the Coordinate Bench has issued a positive direction to appoint.

5. According to the writ petitioner the said direction was issued in favour of the three writ petitioners of W.P.S.T. 120 of 2018. Since the Court found that the recruitment process to be illegal and unsustainable since the evaluation of candidates was being done treating the total marks as 100; whereas under the extant rules and procedure the selection was to be done treating the total marks to be 85. Such an infirmity/illegality having been declared by the Coordinate Bench it is submitted that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief. Judgment of the Division Bench declaring the process to be illegal is to be considered as a judgment in rem and all those who participated in the recruitment process, including the petitioner would be entitled to benefit of the judgment. In this connection he has relied upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak –Vs.- Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 641. He has also placed reliance upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of Career Institute Educational Society –Vs.- Om Shree Thakurji Educational Society reported in (2023) 16 SCC 458.

6. He thus submits that since a valid right had accrued in favour of the writ petitioner by virtue of such declaration in W.P.S.T. 120 of 2018 , the order of the Tribunal dismissing the petitioner’s claim, considering him to be a fence sitter is unsustainable. He submits that the Tribunal ought to have issued the same direction in favour of the writ petitioner as was issued in the case of petitioners 1, 3 and 4 in W.P.S.T. 120 of 2018 .

7. The learned AGP appears on behalf of the State. He draws attention of the Court towards the order passed in W.P.S.T. 120 of 2018 . He has drawn the attention of the Court to the judgment to show that even the said judgment is confined only to three of the writ petitioners therein, the other two writ petitioners, nos. 2 and 5 have not been allowed the relief. He further submits that while allowing relief in favour of the three writ petitioners therein the Coordinate Bench has specifically recorded as follows:

“The State Government is directed to appoint the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 as inspector of drugs immediately but not later than a fortnight from date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The dates of appointment of the petitioners 1, 3