The Calcutta High Court, in a writ petition challenging the recruitment notification for the engagement of staff in the district judiciary, observed that the posts of ‘Stenographer’ and ‘Bench Clerk’ are very sensitive posts for the smooth functioning of the District Judiciary.
The bench further added that "any person engaged on a contractual basis cannot be fastened with any responsibility or liability like a regular employee for any misconduct and engagement on a contractual basis in such sensitive post are likely to create more difficulties than aiding in smooth functioning of the District Judiciary.
Brief Facts:
The present writ petition was filed by the West Bengal Courts' Employees' Association challenging two recruitment notifications in respect of the engagement of staff in Fast Track Courts and Family Court in the District Judgeship of North 24-Parganas and South 24-Parganas. The recruitment process under both notifications was for the engagement of persons on a contractual basis, initially for a period of one year with the option to renew.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioners submitted that in view of the provisions of the West Bengal District Court (Constitution of Service, Recruitment, Appointment, Probation and Discipline of Employees) Rules, 2015, there is no provision for the engagement of persons on a contractual basis for the declared vacancies. The petitioners referred to provisions of Chapter-III & Schedule D to submit that there is no post termed as “English Steno-Typist” sanctioned under the said Rules, and the sanctioned posts are Stenographer Grade-I, Stenographer Grade II and Stenographer Grade III, and the cadre of Stenographer Grade-I is to be filled up entirely by way of promotion from the feeder post that is Stenographer Grade-II, in Stenographer Grade II. Further, it was submitted that there is a provision for recruiting 25% by direct recruitment, the balance 75% is required to be filled up by promotion from the post of Stenographer Grade-III, and there are no provisions for filling up any of the posts of Stenographers Grade-I, Stenographers Grade-II and Stenographers Grade-III by contractual engagement.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state submitted that there is an acute shortfall of employees in the posts sought to be filled by contractual engagement, and there has been no recruitment process for several years in the past, and as such, at present to manage the functioning of the District Judiciary the contractual appointments have been sought to be made. It was contended that if the two appointment notifications are interfered with, then there will be an impasse in the functioning of the District Judiciary. It was further submitted by the State that the said Rules are for the appointment of permanent employees, and there is no bar to engaging contractual employees even if the posts available for regular appointment remain vacant. It was submitted by respondents that towards payment of unskilled employees (Peons) on a contractual basis, a sum of Rs.64,12,032/- has been spent in the financial year 2022-2023. The engagement of contractual employees and staff is not a new procedure, and although the dates for the recruitment process had been notified in advance, the petitioners had waited so long, and only when the appointment was scheduled to be given did the petitioners file the present writ petition with an ulterior motive and mala fide intent.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that the State of West Bengal, in view of the recommendations made by the Justice Shetty Commission, which has been duly accepted and in view of the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, is duty-bound to provide infrastructural support to the District Judiciary for its smooth functioning and the infrastructural support includes providing employees and staff to assist in the functioning of the District Judiciary.
The court observed that it is a matter of anguish that the recruitment process for recruiting regular employees against the sanctioned post lying vacant has not been conducted for years together despite assurances given by the State and the engagement of contractual employees that are too few in number, will not change the situation to any great extent and the smooth functioning of the District Judiciary in the absence of regular staff and employees is likely to suffer and cannot be either cured or supplemented by contractual engagements. It was further observed by the court that the State Government could not remain a spectator and make contractual appointments with the plea to improve the situation in a continuous manner without conducting the regular recruitment process, and it appeared that against the contractual appointment, a huge sum had been spent in the judgeship of 24-Parganas (North).
The court held that the two employment notifications, in the instant case, are clearly de hors the 2015 Rules, the background for framing of which is also explicit from the said rules and that apart and in any event the post of ‘Stenographer’, ‘Bench Clerk (Peshkar)’ are very sensitive post for the smooth functioning of the District Judiciary and any person engaged on contractual basis cannot be fastened with any responsibility or liability like a regular employee for any misconduct and engagement on contractual basis in such sensitive post are likely to create more difficulties than aiding in smooth functioning of the District Judiciary.
The decision of the Court:
The court held that the two employment notifications cannot be allowed to be proceeded with any further and held that any engagement made in terms of the said two notifications shall not create any equity in favour of the persons so engaged.
Case Title: West Bengal Courts’ Employees’ Association vs The State of West Bengal and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Arindam Mukherjee
Case No.: WPA 16317 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr Firdous Samim, Ms Gopa Biswas, Ms Payel Shome, Ms Sampriti Saha, Mr Avijit Kar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Mr Deboprio Karan for the State, Mr Biswabrata Basu Mallick, Ms Parna Roy Chowdhury for respondent no.5., Mr Saikat Banerjee, Ms Juin Dutta Chakraborty for High Court Administration.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
