IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay

W.P.A. 8609 of 2016

Tanmoy Ghosh & Ors.

-Vs-

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Upendra Roy

Mr. Arunesh Pathak

Mr. Aniruddha Singha Roy

For the State : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh

Ms. Sangeeta Roy

Heard on : 11.07.2024, 28.02.2025, 14.05.2025,

Judgment on : 28.08.2025

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

1. The petitioners duly registered as Civil Defence Volunteers of Hooghly

District on contractual basis, having successfully completed basic Civil Defence training, were eligible to participate in the recruitment process initiated pursuant to Notification No. 97(3)/DCD dated 07.02.2012 issued by the Director of Civil Defence, West Bengal, inviting applications for engagement of Auxiliary Fire Personnel in the West Bengal Fire and Emergency Services on contractual basis. Out of 1660 posts notified, 175

posts were earmarked for Hooghly District Civil Defence Volunteers.

2. The District Magistrate and Controller of Civil Defence, Hooghly,

constituted a Selection Committee which shortlisted 148 candidates from

the four sub-divisions of Hooghly for the screening test. Admit cards were duly issued by the Director General, West Bengal Fire and Emergency Services (Respondent No. 3), and the petitioners participated in physical measurement, endurance and viva-voce tests.

3. Although 175 posts were declared for Hooghly, only 106 candidates were declared qualified by Respondent No. 3. The petitioners contended the introduction of an arbitrary cut-off or benchmark in viva-voce, not prescribed under the Notification dated 07.02.2012, was a colourable exercise of power intended to exclude otherwise eligible candidates. The process, according to the petitioners, was neither transparent nor consistent with the recruitment notification.

4. Despite repeated representations to the concerned authorities, including the Principal Secretary, Department of Fire and Emergency Services, the petitioners were not appointed against the remaining vacancies though publication of further lists was assured.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners approached this Hon’ble Court in W.P.

No. 12246 (W) of 2013. This Court was pleased to direct the authorities to keep 31 posts vacant for the petitioners and sought clarification on the terms “vulnerability” and “exigencies” used in reducing the number of posts. The report subsequently filed by the respondents did not provide any rational explanation, and by order dated 30.11.2015, this Hon’ble Court held the reduction of posts was a result of total non-application of mind and directed the authorities to revisit the vacancy position and consider the petitioners for appointment, if otherwise eligible.

6. The petitioners asserted to have fulfilled all requisite qualifications, have been duly subjected to the prescribed selection process, and have never been disqualified on merit. The reduction of 31 posts from Hooghly District was arbitrary, mala fide, vindictive and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. Instead of implementing the Court’s order in its true spirit, the respondents purported to initiate a second screening process by calling the petitioners afresh for tests, which was wholly illegal, arbitrary and beyond jurisdiction. The expression “revisit” as used in the Court’s order could only mean reconsideration of existing vacancies, not reopening of the entire selection process.

8. The irrational issuance of fresh admit cards for a second screening test, intended to deprive the petitioners of their legitimate entitlement. Such action is wholly mala fide, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the binding orders of this Hon’ble Court.

9. The petitioners, therefore, contended the reduction of posts, exclusion from the selection list, and initiation of a second screening process were illegal and liable to be set aside and they were entitled to