Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Papai Sarkar & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 8 June, 2022
04 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
08.06.2022 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
sb
Ct 23 APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 20942 of 2021
Papai sarkar & Anr.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Bikash Ranjan Neogi,
Ms. Soma Chakraborty,
Mr. Guddu Singh,
Mr. Ananya Neogi
.... For the petitioners.
Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharya,
Ms. Sanjukta Samanta
... For the State respondents.
On 1st March, 2013, the Government of West
Bengal, through its office of the Director General &
Commandant General of Police Home Guards, West
Bengal, published an advertisement in the news papers. A
copy of the advertisement published in "Sambad Pratidin"
on 1st March, 2013 is produced by the advocate for the
State, in terms of the previous direction. A copy of the said
advertisement is taken on record.
By the said advertisement, applications were invited
for enrolment of 2268 Home Guard Volunteers under West
Bengal Home Guards Organization (excluding Kolkata
Police Area) as per provisions of the West Bengal Home
Guards Rules, 1962 & as amended thereafter. The
district- wise vacancy position was also stipulated therein.
Any resident (male/female) for the last three years of the
District/Commissionerate was eligible to apply for being
enrolled, having minimum educational qualification of
Class-VIII pass from any recognized institute having the
stipulated physical standard and between the age group of
18 years and 35 years. The physical standards were also
specified. In the said advertisement, the selection
procedure is as follows:-
"1. Candidates submitting valid application will be
called for Physical Measurement.
2. Candidates who will qualify in Physical
Measurement will be called for Physical
Efficiency Test.
3 Candidates who qualify in Physical Efficiency
Test will then appear for Personality Test before
the Enrolment Committee".
The petitioners participated in the selection process
and on having qualified in the physical measurement and
physical efficiency test were asked to appear before the
paper scrutiny team at Doltala Police Line, on 15th March,
2018 at 10.00 hrs., by a message dated 8th March, 2018
(which appears at page 15 of the writ petition). The
petitioners appeared before the scrutiny team at Doltala
Police Line on the specified date and time but nothing was
thereafter intimated to them. The petitioners, therefor,
have approached this Court by filing the instant writ
petition.
By an order dated 10th February, 2022, the State
respondents were asked to file a report in the form of an
affidavit. The said report has been duly filed. The
petitioner has also taken an exception to the report.
After considering the writ petition, the report in the
form of an affidavit filed by the respondent no.2 and the
petitioners' exception, I find that there is no factual
dispute for which the respondents are required to file a
comprehensive affidavit dealing with the statements made
in the writ petition. The issues which fall for consideration
in the writ petition are legal in nature and as such the
writ petition can be dealt with and disposed of without a
comprehensive affidavit from the side of the respondents.
The petitioners, apart from placing the writ petition
have also referred to paragraph 4 of the report filed by the
respondent no.2, and pages 12 to 17 thereof and submits
that the selection process on the basis of the stipulated
criteria published in the advertisement could not be
altered in the midst of such selection process. The
Notification dated 15th June, 2017, which has been
pressed into operation by the respondents for the purpose
of fixing certain eligibility criteria were not specifically
included in the advertisement published in 2013.
According to the petitioners, the notification dated 15th
June, 2017 is not retrospective in nature and as such the
same could not have been applied to the selection process
wherein the petitioners participated. The distribution of
marks, the weightage for higher qualification according to
the petitioners were not in the advertisement. Thus by
applying the provisions of the Notification dated 15th June,
2017 the rule of game has been changed. The petitioners
have relied upon the judgments reported in AIR 1972 SC
628 (para 7); (2012) 7 SCC 198 (paragraphs 8 and 9) and
(2008) 3 SCC 512 and submited that the petitioners be
given appointment and/or enrolled as Home Guard
Volunteers.
On behalf of the State it is submitted that while the
process of selection was pending, the Notification dated
15th June, 2017 was issued. The respondents were
entitled in law to apply the eligibility criteria stipulated in
the said Notification dated 15th June, 2017 to the selection
process of 2013 which was till then pending. It is further
submitted that no vested right arisen in favour of the
petitioners merely by initiation of the selection process
and as such new scheme under the said Notification can
certainly be applied to the pending selection process.
That apart and in any event, the application of the new
scheme was for transparent, fair and effective recruitment
in the search of best candidates. Since the selection
process permit holding of a Personality Test the
candidates can be adjudged in the light of the parameters
contained in the Notification dated 15th June, 2017. In
this context, the respondents have relied upon an order
dated 5th December, 2017 passed in Civil Appeal
No.20883 of 2017 (State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. The
Managing Committee, Nirjharini S. B. Vidyalaya (H.S.)
Etc.).
The matter is adjourned till 29th June, 2022 to
enable the respective advocates to make further argument
in the matter.
(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)
