Santosh Ghosh vs State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1918 Cal

    40
08.04.2022
 Ct. No.23
     pg.


                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                     CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                              APPELLATE SIDE

                                  WPA 10773 of 2020

                                  Santosh Ghosh
                                        Vs.
                            State of West Bengal & Ors.


                    Mr. Shamit Sanyal
                    Mr. Sabyasachi Roy
                               ... For the petitioner

                    Mr. Swapan Kumar Datta, Sr. Advocate
                    Mr. Dipankar Das Gupta
                               ... For the State


                    The petitioner says that he was engaged as a Civic

             Volunteer at Kaliganj Police Station on and from February

             2014. While engaged as a Civic Volunteer, the petitioner

             received an appointment letter on 23rd February, 2015

             from the office of the Additional Chief Secretary/Chief

             Personnel    Officer   of   the   Irrigation       and   Waterways

             Department    vide     memo   no.214/23        -    02/2015.   The

             petitioner approached the Executive Engineer, Bankura

             Irrigation Division, on 2nd March, 2015 with the said

             appointment letter to join thereat. At that juncture, it

             transpired that the appointment letter received by the

             petitioner was not a genuine one for which a complaint

             was lodged before the Bankura Police Station by the

             Irrigation and Waterways Department. The petitioner was

             implicated in a criminal case pursuant to such complaint,

             being Case No.73 of 2015 dated 2nd March, 2015 at
                      2




Bankura Police Station. The charges levelled against the

petitioner were under Sections 468/471/472/474/120B of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner ultimately was

acquitted from the said criminal case by a judgment and

order dated 13th April, 2018 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, 4th Court at Bankura. The petitioner alleges

that he wanted to join his duties as Civic Volunteer after

his acquittal but was prevented from doing so. The

petitioner thereafter made a demand for justice on 19th

November, 2020 and filed the instant writ petition on 14th

December, 2020.


       The terms of engagement of the petitioner as a

Civic Volunteer are not borne out from the records.

However, relying upon the findings arrived at by a Full

Bench of this Court in the decision reported in (2015) 2

CHN 461 (Tanmay Ghosh & Ors. v. State of West Bengal &

Ors.), it is held that the petitioner is not holding a civil

post. As a Civic Volunteer the petitioner though can file a

writ petition before this Court ventilating his grievances as

held in Tanmay Ghosh (supra), but in the instant case, the

petitioner is unable to demonstrate infringement of any

right guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution of India

as envisaged under Article 226(1) of the Constitution of

India. To come within the other limb of Article 226(1) of the

Constitution of India to get a relief for "any other purpose",

the petitioner has to show that he has been subjected to

some prejudicial act by the State. The petitioner had

voluntarily given up the job and accepted the appointment
                            3




in   the     Irrigation     and   Waterways       Department.     The

subsequent facts may be unfortunate which resulted in

the petitioner being not able to pursue the appointment

before the Irrigation and Waterways Department. It is

equally unfortunate to notice that the petitioner had to

defend himself in a criminal case for about four years and

was acquitted. However, these incidents may give the

petitioner a cause to seek redressal against issuance of a

fake appointment letter to him but does not entitle him to

seek a mandamus to allow him to join his services as Civic

Volunteer. The nature of engagement is also an embargo to

the petitioner seeking the relief(s) as claimed. That apart

and in any event, six years had elapsed in between his

quitting the services of Civic Volunteer and re-approaching

the authority for being allowed to join the services.


           Considering all these facts, I find that the writ

petition is devoid of merit. At any rate, mandamus cannot

be sought for in respect of allowing to join services in

respect of a Civic Volunteer. Moreover, I do not find any

reason      to   direct    the    respondents     to   consider   the

petitioner's representation to allow him to join after a gap

of six years as aforesaid.

The writ petition, therefor, stands dismissed

without any order as to costs.

Dismissal of this writ petition will, however, not

disentitle the petitioner from seeking fresh engagement as

a Civic Volunteer, if permissible in law.

Since I have not called for any affidavits,

allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to have

not been admitted.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

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

necessary formalities.

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)