Judgment & Order

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

(i) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why Writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Order/direction shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to recommend the name of the Petitioner against the post of Lower Division Clerk/Agri. Assistant (TAFS Grade-III)/Agri. Assistant (Except TAFS Grade-III), in c/w Advt. No.01/2020 and Notification, dated 12.02.2021, for the posts of Group-C, [Lower Division Clerk (LDC), Agriculture Assistant (Except TAFS Grade-III), Agriculture Assistant (TAFS Grade-III), Junior Operator (Pump) & Junior-Tasking Operator (Uncommon)].

(ii) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why Writ in the nature of mandamus and/or Order/direction shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to re-publish the Merit List, dated 13.09.2023, after including the name of the Petitioner therein.

(iii) Make the rules absolute.

iv) Pass any further order/orders as this Hon’ble High Court considered fit and proper.

AND

For this act of kindness, the Petitioner, as is duty bound, shall ever pray.

02. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. D. Paul appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also heard Learned Additional G.A, Mr. M. Debbarma appearing on behalf of the State-respondent and Learned Counsel, Mr. P. Sahu appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 7.

03. Taking part in the hearing, Learned Counsel for the petitioner drawn the attention of the Court that by an advertisement dated 27.11.2020, the JRBT invited online application for fillip up of 1500 posts of LDC (Group-C) and thereafter, by another notification, the JRBT increased the said nos. of posts from 1500 to 2410 of different categories. In the said notification there was a clause in respect of age “(c) As regards to the candidates who had participated in the cancelled recruitment process by the Department of Agriculture, they will be given one time age relaxation in the upper age limit subject to providing documentary evidence of their participation in the earlier recruitment processes for the same post(s)”. According to Learned Counsel, prior to that Department of Agriculture had issued another advertisement on 25.09.2018 for filling up the post of Agri-Assistant (TAFS Grade- III) and the petitioner participated in the said selection process and in this regard token was issued (Annexure-3), but after that as the said process was cancelled, so, with the clause of age relaxation, he applied for the post of LDC against the notification dated 12.02.2021 (Annexure-2). It was further submitted that JRBT in the said selection process issued Provisional Admission Certificate to him (Annexure-4) and he appeared in the selection test and after that he was called for interview (Annexure-5) and secured 121.75 marks both in the written examination as well as in the interview. But according to the petitioner, inspite of securing said marks his name was not recommended by JRBT for appointment although the persons who had secured lesser marks were recommended by JRBT for appointment to the Government and in this regard, the notification dated 13.09.2023 (Annexure-6) was drawn by Learned Counsel for the petitioner and thereafter, he submitted representation but that was not considered. Hence, he filed the writ petition.

04. The respondents have contested the case by filing counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit in para Nos.10 and 11 the following assertions were made:

“10. That, in reply to para 11 of the Writ Petition, I say that the fact is that the petitioner compared his marks with other UR category candidates in the final merit list, Sri Nabajit Bhattacharjee at Sl. No.447 recommended for the post of LDC having secured 121.7 marks, Sri Kaushik Biswas at Sl. No.448 recommended for the post of LDC having secured 121.5 marks and Sri Rupak Dey at Sl. No.450 recommended for the post of Agri. Asstt. TAFS Gr.III Post having secured 121.5 marks. Alt