Sourav Karmakar & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1316 Cal

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1316 Cal
Judgement Date : 10 February, 2021

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Sourav Karmakar & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 February, 2021

S/L 5
10.02.2021
Court No.26
SD
                               WPA 3329 of 2021
                            (Via Video Conference)

                              Sourav Karmakar & Ors.
                                       Vs.
                               Union of India & Ors.

              Mr. Dilip Kumar Samanta
                                                   ... for the Petitioners.

              Mr. Samrat Sen
              Ms. Amrita Panja Moulick
                                                        ... for the State.

              Mr. Bimbisar Dash
                                          ... for the Respondent Nos.7 & 8.

1. This is an application under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioners are

aggrieved by a bid dated January 18, 2021 issued by the

Government of West Bengal for the selection of Private

Training Providers for Implementing Vocational Education

in Government/Government Aided/Government Sponsored

Schools in West Bengal.

2. The case of the petitioners is that there are presently

contract employees working as vocational trainers in certain

schools that act as private training providers as defined in

Notification being No. 8/6/2013-Invt. dated December 27,

2013.

3. Mr. Samrat Sen, counsel appearing on behalf of the

State respondent, submits that the petitioners are all

contractual employees of the training providers who have

been engaged for a certain limited period. He further

submits that there is no privity of contract between the

Government of West Bengal and these petitioners. He

submits that the salaries/wages are also not paid by the State

of West Bengal to these petitioners.

4. He further submits that the period of contract

between the private training providers and the State is

coming to an end and therefore, this bid has been taken out.

He submits that the training providers who are earlier

having contract with the State are also eligible to participate

in the same. He further submits that the petitioners being

contractual employees of the private training providers they

do not have legal and statutory right to approach this Court

for an order stalling and quashing this tender bid.

5. Mr. Dilip Kumar Samanta, counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioners, relies upon a judgment rendered by

a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.10843 of 2019 to buttress his

argument that in a similar case of vocational trainers, the

High Court had passed an order protecting the interest of the

trainers.

6. Upon a perusal of the judgment of the Rajasthan High

Court, it appears that the same is based on certain

categorical submissions made on behalf of the State

Government which stated that the tender process was not

going to affect the writ petitioners in that particular case in

any manner. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Judge has

categorically stated that he has not gone into the merits of

the order passed in relation to fresh competitive bid of the

private training providers. In fact, in that case, the

competitive bid was for choosing private training providers

in addition to the already existing private training providers.

This is not the case in the present matter. Furthermore, no

principle or ratio has been enunciated in the order passed by

the Rajasthan High Court, and therefore, it does not have

any precedential value.

7. Upon a perusal of the documents annexed to the writ

petition, I find that the petitioners have neither annexed

their appointment letters nor the proof of payment, that is,

proof as to the particular employer who is making payments

to them. This was a condition precedent which was required

to be complied by the writ petitioners during the course of

the filing of this writ petition, as has been held by the

Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Singh -v- State of

Haryana reported in (1988) 4 SCC 534. Relevant portion

of the above judgment is extracted below:

"13. ......In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter- affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the court will not entertain the point. In this context, it will not be out of place to point out that in this regard there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. ......."

8. Given the lack of evidence that was not forthcoming

as annexures in the writ petition, it clearly appears that the

petitioners are contract employees under the private training

providers and therefore, have no contractual relationship

with the State Government.

9. In my view, the writ court is to intervene only in the

situation where a statutory right and/or a fundamental right

of the petitioner is being affected. Passing orders merely

upon one's asking cannot be the right course of action. In

certain cases when the State Government is willing to

consider the representations of the petitioners, the High

Court allows such writ petitions directing the State