Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ct. 238 Monoj Choudhury vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 5 December, 2022
15 05-12-2022
AKG
WPA 15201 of 2015
Ct. 238 Monoj Choudhury
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 3687 of 2017
Minati Nag
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Ekramul Bari,
Mr. S. M. Ali,
Mr. Sk. Imtiaj Uddin
...for the Petitioner in WPA 15201/2015
Mr. Kallol Basu,
Mr. Suman Banerjee
...for the Petitioner in WPA 3687/2017
&
...for the Respondent No. 5 in WPA 15201/2015
Mr. Monish Sen,
Ms. Oisani Mukherjee
...for College in both matters.
Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay,
Ms. Iti Dutta
...for the State in WPA 15201/2015
The petitioner in WPA 3687 of 2017 applied for
the post of Laboratory Attendant (Group-D) at
Maharajadhiraj Uday Chand Women's College in
Burdwan.
The said petitioner, though belonged to OBC (B)
category, admittedly, applied as a general category
candidate. The benefit of age relaxation provided by the
circular dated January 10, 1997 appearing at page 29 of
WPA 3687 of 2017 was extended to him.
It has been submitted by the writ petitioner in
WPA 15201 of 2015 that the petitioner in WPA 3687 of
2017 was not entitled to get age relaxation of OBC (B)
category since she applied as a general candidate.
The only point involved in these two writ petitions
is whether the petitioner in WPA 3687 of 2017 even
after applying as a general candidate was entitled to get
the benefit of age relaxation applicable to an OBC (B)
candidate.
The issue is covered by a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, reported at (2010) 3 SCC 119
(Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh).
It was held in the said judgment that the reserved
category candidates are not given any advantage in the
selection process when they compete under the general
category. The concession in fee and age relaxation only
enable certain candidates belonging to the reserved
categories to fall within the zone of consideration.
The concessions and relaxation place the
candidates on a par with general category candidates. It
is only thereafter merit of candidates is to be determined
without any further concessions in favour of reserved
category candidates. If a reserved category candidate,
gets selected on the basis of merit, he cannot be treated
as a reserved candidate. The concessions availed with
regard to the age by reserved candidates had no
relevance for determination inter se merit on the basis
of written test and interview. Age relaxation does not
amount to reservation.
Having regard to the ratio of the aforesaid
judgment of the Supreme Court, there is no scope to
interfere with the selection of the petitioner in WPA
3687/2017.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner
in WPA 3687 of 2017 that her service has already been
confirmed subject to the result of WPA 15201 of 2015.
The appointing authority will, therefore, be at liberty to
confirm her service following this order.
Accordingly, WPA 15021 of 2015 is dismissed and
WPA 3687 of 2017 is allowed.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously in
compliance with usual legal formalities.
(Kausik Chanda, J.)
