Tanmasi Konar vs The State Of West Bengal And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5241 Cal

29th September,
 2021
 (AK)
 15

                                  W.P.S.T. 66 of 2017
                                   Tanmasi Konar
                                         Vs.
                         The State of West Bengal and another

                                 (Via Video Conference)

                           Mr. Achintya Kumar Banerjee
                           Mr. Jayanta Samanta
                           Ms. Indumouli Banerjee
                                                  ...For the Petitioner.

                           Mr. Pratip Kumar Roy
                           Ms. Shraboni Sarkar
                                                   ...For the Respondents.

Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee Mr. Somnath Naskar ...For the State.

The petitioner has made out a strong prima facie

case as regards the rules of the game having been

changed after the game has commenced inasmuch as,

by a second notification, uploaded only on July 4, 2015,

the initial criteria of the examination for the post of

Assistant Public Prosecutors were changed.

Initially the rules provided that the aggregate marks

of the written examination, which was allocated four

hundred marks, and the viva-voce, for one hundred

marks, would be taken as the qualifying criteria.

However, by the latter notification, it was indicated

that the results at each stage would be taken into

consideration for eligibility for the next stage.

As such, the petitioner had already prepared for the

examinations since March 2015, but due to the change in

the rules of the examination, there was a sea change in

the weightage to be given to the respective marks for the

written test and the viva-voce examinations, particularly

in view of the fact that the examinations were scheduled

as early as on July 25, 2015, that is, only 21 days after

the second notification was uploaded.

Learned counsel for the petitioner intends to rely on

certain judgments in support of his contentions.

Learned counsel appearing for the Public Service

Commission as well as learned counsel appearing for the

State controverts such submissions and contend that the

change effected was within the periphery of law and could

not have been said to be vitiated by any legal provision

and/or tenet of natural justice.

It appears that the fate of the present appointees to

the post of Assistant Public Prosecutors, who are several

in number and are spread over different districts, would

be directly affected by the outcome of the present writ

petition.

As such, the learned Additional Government

Pleader is requested to take appropriate instructions and

to furnish the particulars, including the names,

addresses, e-mail ids, if available, and/or other details of

the appointees who have been engaged pursuant to the

results of the examination, which is under challenge.

The petitioner is granted liberty to make necessary

amendments to the cause title of the writ petition, thereby

impleading such current appointees as respondents to

the writ petition and to serve notice on them at the

earliest thereafter.

The matter shall next be enlisted on November 23,

2021 for hearing.

Affidavits, if any, shall be exchanged in the

meantime.

It is made clear that the current appointments

pursuant to the results of the examination-in-question

shall abide by the result of the present writ petition.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

(Jay Sengupta, J.)