Digbijoy Singha Jana vs State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1558 Cal

3
Court
No. 11   25.2.2021                      MAT 186 of 2021
G.S.Da
s                                            With
                                                CAN 1 of 2021

                                           Digbijoy Singha Jana
                                                     -Vs-
                                       State of West Bengal & Ors.

                     Mr. Madan Mohan Roy

                                           ... for the Appellant

                     Mr. Soumen Datta
                     Mr. Subhadeep Chatterjee

                                                ... for the Respondent Nos. 5,6,7 & 8

Party/Parties is/are represented in the order of

their name/names as printed above in the cause title.

Mr. Datta, Learned Counsel, appears for the

Respondent Nos. 5,6,7 and 8/the Cooperative Society

in issue.

Extensive arguments have been place before this

Court by the respective parties against and for the

judgment and order impugned of the Hon'ble Single

Bench dated 8th of February, 2021.

At issue in this appeal is a recruitment to the

post of Manager of the said Cooperative Society in

issue. The appellant/the writ petitioner has

complained of the fact that although he participated in

the selection process which was duly advertised,

results have not been announced qua the recruitment.

Mr. Roy, Learned Counsel appearing for the

appellant/the writ petitioner, submits that in terms of

Rule 104A of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies

Rules, 2011 (for short, the 2011 Rules) read with

Section 134C(2)(d), the said Cooperative Society enjoys

a certain degree of autonomy/freedom to make and/or

execute its own recruitment policy.

Therefore, it is argued that the selection process

in which the appellant has already participated

requires to be taken to its logical conclusion since the

said Cooperative Society has acted in terms of its own

policy of recruitment. Such recruitment, Mr. Roy,

submits, includes, inter alia, a communication from

the said Cooperative Society to the Employment

Exchange for forwarding names as well as publication

of the recruitment notice in a local vernacular

newspaper.

Per contra, Mr. Dutta, Learned Counsel, submits

that the law on recruitment to public posts finds

mention in Rule 105 of the 2011 Rules which, inter

alia, directs all Cooperative Societies to notify their

vacancies at least in one national daily newspaper as

well as to take steps to obtain eligible names from the

Employment Exchange.

It is submitted that since the provisions of Rule

105 were not followed in the recruitment exercise in

which the appellant participated, the Hon'ble Single

Bench correctly noticed such fact and permitted the

said Cooperative Society to carry out a fresh

recruitment strictly in terms of Rule 105 of the 2011

Rules.

Mr. Dutta submits that such process of

recruitment is in motion. In support of his arguments

connected to the transparent and wide nature of

public recruitment exercise, Mr. Dutta relies upon the

twin authorities of [(1997) 9 SCC 527 (Raj Kumar And

Others -Vs.- Shakti Raj And Others at paragraph 15]

and, [(2014) 14 SCC 50 (Renu And Others -Vs.- District

and Sessions Judge Tis Hazari Courts Delhi and

Another at paragraph 35.3].

Having heard the parties and anxiously

considering the materials placed, this Court is of the

view at this stage that an arguable issue has arisen

connected to the extent of autonomy enjoyed by the

said Cooperative Society in carrying out the

recruitment in issue under the relevant Act and the

Rules.

Although Learned Counsel for the appellant

submits from the records that the steps were taken to

notify the Employment Exchange and to publish the

vacancy in a local vernacular newspaper, Mr. Dutta

insists that such steps were not strictly followed in

compliance with Rule 105 of the 2011 Rules.

Therefore, on the issue of what qualifies to be a

newspaper to be a national newspaper and what is the

extent of autonomy to be enjoyed by the said

Cooperative Society in shaping its recruitment policy,

requires to be dealt with on affidavits by the parties.

However, at this stage this Court is unable to

discover any error in reasoning qua a public

recruitment exercise in the judgment and order of the

Hon'ble Single Bench dated 8th February, 2021.

Accordingly, while the parties are permitted to

file their respective affidavits-in-opposition and Reply

respectively within a period of two weeks from this

date and a further period of one week thereafter, the

fresh recruitment exercise on the terms as directed to

be conducted by the Hon'ble Single Bench shall

continue with the caveat that the said Cooperative

Society/the Respondent nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 to this

appeal shall take leave of this Court before giving

appointment to any successful candidate.

Since this Court has devoted two dates to hear

this matter and extensive arguments have been placed

by the parties, let the matter return under the heading

"Appeals For Hearing" on the 25th of March, 2021 at

3.00 pm as "Heard-in-part".

All parties to act on a server copy of this order

duly obtained from the official website of the Hon'ble

High Court, Calcutta.

(Saugata Bhattacharyya,J.) (Subrata Talukdar,J.)