Sanjeeb Ram Ganguly & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 4524 Cal

07.09.2021
 SL No.14
Court No.16
   (gc)
                                WPST 39 of 2021

                           Sanjeeb Ram Ganguly & Ors.
                                       Vs.
                           State of West Bengal & Ors.

                              (Via Video Conference)


                                         Mr. Debojyoti Basu,
                                         Mr. Anuran Samanta,
                                         Mrs. Shahina Haque,
                                         Mr. Anupam Das,
                                                        ...for the Petitioners.
                                         Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick,
                                         Mr. Shayak Chakraborty,
                                                             ....for the State.
                                         Mr. Sohan De Dhara,
                                                 ...for the Respondent No.13.

The original applicants in O.A.-362 of 2015 has filed

the instant writ petition challenging the order dated March

4, 2020 passed by the learned 1st Bench, West Bengal

Administrative Tribunal.

The writ petitioners have participated in the selection

process for the year 2006 for the post of Lower Division

Clerk, Group-'C' in the District Registrar Office, Burdwan.

The writ petitioners claim to have appeared in the written

test and being qualified were directed to appear in the

interview. The writ petitioners appeared in the

interview/viva-voce test. Since the writ petitioners were not

given appointment, representations were filed. The writ

petitioners claim that their names appear in the recast panel

but without exhausting the recast panel, the authorities

advertised for filling up the post of LDC and LDA in the

same department in the year 2013.

The writ petitioners have alleged that 13 candidates,

who are the private respondent nos. 5 to 17 herein, have

been appointed under the District Registrar, Burdwan

thereby depriving the writ petitioners from getting

employment. The writ petitioners challenged the action of

the respondent authorities for giving appointment to the

candidates who participated in the selection process of 2013

conducted by the West Bengal Staff Selection Commission

without considering their candidature. The original

applicants/ writ petitioners herein prayed for an order

directing the respondents to give appointment as their

names are appearing in the recast panel.

The State contested the original application by filing a

reply relying on the report dated December 10, 2019. In the

said report it has been stated that there were 40 vacancies

in 2006 selection process. Out of the 40 posts 12 were old

sanctioned posts and 28 vacant posts were for the year

2006. Out of the said 28 posts, 4 posts were filled up on

compassionate ground and the selection of the candidates

for 24 posts were distributed as - General-9, General PH-1,

SC-5, ST-2 and OBC-2. It is the case of the State that the

appointment to the said posts was done strictly in

accordance with law and there was no illegality or

arbitrariness in the matter of giving appointment.

We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties

and have perused the materials on record.

Records reveal that one Santanu Sinha challenged the

selection process of 2006 conducted by District Registrar,

Burdwan for recruitment to the post of LDC by filing an

Original Application No. 8572 of 2008 before the Tribunal.

The Learned Tribunal by a judgment and order dated 24th

August, 2010 held that the selection process was vitiated by

act of arbitrariness so far as allotment of marks for oral

test/viva voce are concerned. By the said order, the Tribunal

directed the appointing authority to recast the panel by

proportional reduction of marks to each and every candidate

so far oral/viva voce is concerned keeping only 15 marks for

viva voce or oral test and after recasting the panel, the

appointing authority will decide the eligible candidates

according to their merit position taking into account their

total score both in the written test and oral/viva voce test.

In terms of the order passed by the Tribunal

ultimately the recast panel was prepared. The writ petitioner

nos. 1, 2 and 3 were placed at serial number 22, 33 and 45

respectively in the General category and the writ petitioner

no. 4 was placed at serial no. 17 in the recast panel.

Records further reveal that the Directorate of Stamp

Revenue and Registration, West Bengal had allotted 40

vacancies in 2006 including the vacancies declared for the

year 2000. Out of 40 posts, 12 posts were from old

sanctioned posts of 2000 which were not filled up. Thus, 28

posts were for the 2006 selection process. Out of 28 posts 4

posts were filled up on compassionate ground. Out of the

24 posts 9 were filled up by the General Category candidates

and 5 by the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste

category. Since 9 candidates were to be appointed in the

General category, the candidates who were placed under

Serial Nos.1 to 9 were offered appointment and as the

candidates against Serial Nos.3, 6 and 9 did not join, the

next 3 candidates whose name appeared in Serial Nos.10,

11 and 12 were offered the appointment. Since 1 out of the

aforesaid 3 candidates did not join, the candidate against

Serial No.13 was offered appointment.

Insofar as the case of Iti Banerjee (Chatterjee) is

concerned, it appears from the materials available in the

record that she filed an original application being O.A.-572

of 2012 praying for re-examination of her answer-scripts.

Such prayer of Iti Banerjee (Chatterjee) was allowed. The

answers were re-examined and she was awarded an

enhancement of three marks. Due to enhancement of

marks, Iti Banerjee (Chatterjee) was placed above the Serial

No.13 and she was, accordingly, given appointment. Thus,

9 posts available for General Caste candidates were filled up

and since the writ petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 were placed at

Serial Nos.22, 23 and 45, they were not considered for

appointment to the said post.

The writ petitioner No.4 belongs to a Scheduled Caste

category and he was placed under Serial No.17 in the recast

panel under such category. Since only 5 posts were

reserved in the Scheduled Caste category, the writ petitioner

No.4 was not considered for appointment to the said post

under such category.

It is evident from record that the selection process of

2006 was completed and the vacancies were filled up. The

writ petitioners could not satisfy this Court that 86

vacancies pertain to that of the year 2006. The said 86

vacancies are of the year 2012 as rightly held by the

Tribunal.

The respondent authorities initiated a fresh selection

process in the year 2013 for filling up the vacancies that

arose in the meantime. The writ petitioners' name appeared

in the recast panel pertaining to the earlier selection process

of 2006. Enlistment of the name of the petitioners in the

panel for a particular selection process, which was

completed and the vacancies were filled up, does not vest

any right upon the petitioner to claim appointment in the

vacancies that are sought to be filled up by the subsequent

selection process.

The private respondents participated in the selection

process of 2013 and they were recruited through such

selection process. The writ petitioners did not participate in

the selection process of 2013 and as such the writ

petitioners do not have any right to challenge the

appointment of private respondents.

The learned Tribunal, in our view, after taking into

consideration the materials on record was justified in not

accepting the claim made by the writ petitioners in the

original application. The impugned order does not suffer

from any infirmity.

The writ petition, being WPST 39 of 2021,

accordingly, stands dismissed. There shall be, however, no

order as to costs.

Pursuant to our earlier order dated August 10, 2021,

the original records have been produced before us. We have

perused the original records. Let the original records be

sealed and thereafter transmitted to the Registrar, West

Bengal Administrative Tribunal by the department

concerned within two weeks from date.

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order

duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)