Santosh Kumar Roy vs Union Of India & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1908 Cal

12.03.2021.
Item no. 173.
Court No.13
   sp
                              W.P.A. No. 4745 of 2018
                            (Through Video Conference)

                               Santosh Kumar Roy
                                      Versus
                               Union of India & Ors.


                  Mr. Subir Sanyal,
                  Mr. Bikram Banerjee,
                  Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta
                                                     ...For the petitioner.
                  Mr. Soumya Majumder,
                  Mr. Dibyendu Chatterjee,
                  Ms. Piyali Paul
                                                ..For the respondents.

The writ petitioner participated in the process of

selection to the post of Warehouse Assistant Gr-II in the

Central Warehousing Corporation pursuant to an

advertisement issued on February 6, 2014. The criteria

for such selection were, inter alia, that the candidate

should have the ability to type with a minimum speed of

30 WPM (words per minute) in English on a computer.

The records indicate that the petitioner along with

171 other candidates participated in the process of

selection.

By order dated February 9, 2015, the petitioner

and three other candidates were appointed after a list of

successful candidates were published comprising of four

persons. Three of such persons including the petitioner

belonged to the General category and one person under

the S.C. category.

The petitioner was kept on probation for a period

of one year and thereafter by a communication dated

May 27, 2016, he was confirmed in the post of

Warehouse Assistant Gr-II and posted at Central

Warehousing Corporation, Sargachi.

However, by a communication dated March 12,

2018, an order of even date issued by the Regional

Manager, Disciplinary Authority of the Warehousing

Corporation was communicated to the petitioner whereby

and whereunder the petitioner was terminated from

service. It is stated in the said order that pursuant to an

investigation conducted by the Corporation, the original

answer scripts in the form of print outs of typing of the

test undertaken by the petitioner for the selection

process on September 7, 2014 came to be reevaluated.

Upon reevaluation, it is stated that the petitioner was

found with 29.2 WPM i.e. .8 words below the minimum

requirement of 30 W.P.M.

Hence, the petitioner was found ineligible for

appointment to the post of W.A.G.-II and his service

came to be terminated with immediate effect.

Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Subir Sanyal

assisted by Mr. Bikram Banerjee would submit the

termination of the petitioner is ex facie illegal since he

had already become a permanent employee and any act

resulting in his cessation of service would have to be

issued after a full-fledged departmental enquiry.

It is further submitted that the respondent

authorities could not have reevaluated the answer sheets

of the type writing examination four years after the

original test and reversed the petitioner's appointment.

Counsel for the respondents would argue orally

and as averred in affidavit-in-opposition that the

Vigilance Department of the Warehousing Corporation

received a complaint as regards large scale malpractices

in the process of selection for the said post. Pursuant to

such complaint, the Vigilance Department reopened the

answer scripts and reevaluated the same and found that

the petitioner fell .8 short of the minimum requirement of

the 30 WPM in typing on computer.

This Court has carefully heard the arguments of

both the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

The record reveals that as many as 171 candidates

appeared for the recruitment process to the 16 posts and

4 candidates were selected in the year 2015. It further

transpires that only 3 persons joined the post.

This Court is inclined to accept the submissions of

Mr. Subir Sanyal, counsel for the petitioner that an

evaluation done of a typing speed even if otherwise

quantifiable in marks would involve an element of

subjectivity.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that is no

subjectivity involved, answer scripts in the recruitment

process once reevaluated, cannot be reopened and

reevaluated like the regular academic examination. The

respondents, therefore, could not have, 4 years after

selection process is completed, reopened the answer

scripts of the petitioner and found him unqualified.

It is surprising to note that the respondents have

chosen not to disclose the original answer scripts and

evaluation made by the original assessor of the typing

examination given by the petitioner. There is a feeble

submission made at the bar that the same can be

produced.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that the

respondents were entitled to reevaluate the answer

scripts, difference of .8 from the qualifying marks found

by the Reevaluation Committee in the year 2018, even

otherwise cannot be a ground to terminate the petitioner

from service or lead to a conclusion that there was a

gross illegality in the original selection process.

The respondents in the affidavit-in-opposition have

stated that an investigation, as on July 2018, as regards

the involvement of any Senior Officials of the Corporation

in the process of selection, was being conducted. Three

years have elapsed since such affidavit has been

affirmed. There is nothing on record to indicate that any

steps have been taken against any person other than the

petitioner as regards the alleged malpractice in selection

process.

What is most shocking to note is that there is not

a whisper in the affidavit-in-opposition that the

petitioner in any way participated in perpetrating any

illegality on the Corporation or in the selection process.

This Court has no hesitation to hold that the

petitioner has been victimized and made scapegoat of

rivalry between the present Committee members and

those present in the year 2014. Extraneous

considerations having prompted the respondents to act

against the petitioner, also cannot be ruled out.

The writ petition thus succeeds and is allowed.

The impugned order dated March 12, 2018 is quashed

and set aside.

The petitioner shall be restored to his post of

W.A.G.-II in the Central Warehousing Corporation with

immediate effect.

The petitioner shall be treated as on service from

March 12, 2018 till date. The petitioner shall be entitled

to all benefits of revision of pay that he may have been

entitled to from the year 2018 till date. The arrears of

salary and allowances that the petitioner may be entitled

to from March 12, 2018 till the date of his rejoining in

the post shall be paid to him within a period of one

month from date. The said arrears will carry interest

@11% per annum from March 12, 2018 till the date of

actual payment.

The petitioner shall report to the respondent no. 6,

Regional Manager, Central Warehousing Corporation at

the address mentioned in the cause title, within a period

of 7 days from date.

In view of the interest ordered, there shall be no

further order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if

applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all

formalities.

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)