Surojit Kanrar & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 2854 Cal

  119                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
13.05.2022               CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
Court No. 23                      APPELLATE SIDE
     d.g.
                                       WPA 18990 of 2021

                                   Surojit Kanrar & Ors.
                                            Vs.
                              The State of West Bengal & Anr.

                        Mr. Tanmay Basu,
                        Mr. Subhadip Paramanick,
                        Ms. Jayita Dhar.
                                                ... for the petitioners

                        Mr. Arunava Ghosh,
                        Mr. S.R. Saha.
                                                    ... for the respondent no. 2

The petitioners say that pursuant to an

advertisement for recruiting Data Entry Operator in

Webel Technology Limited (in short Webel) published in

the portal of the official website of Webel, the petitioners

submitted their application in online mode. In

acknowledgement of such applications an identification

code was given to each of the applicants. The petitioners

say that after completion of the selection process the

result has been published without giving the

identification number but only referring to the Aadhar

number of the successful candidates. The petitioners

say that by this process Webel Technology Limited has

acted in an in transparent manner. Since the results

have been published by indicating the Aadhar number it

cannot be ascertained whether the persons selected had

actually applied for in the selection process and got

selected or the selected candidates are from outside the

applicants. If the result was published against the

identification numbers given to each of the applicant, it

would have been easier to know which of the applicants

have actually been selected. The petitioners say that

confusing reports are being circulated through social

media and they apprehend a scam. The petitioners,

therefor, are inter alia, seeking a direction to allow them

to join as Data Entry Operator for Bangla Sahayata

Kendra (in short 'BSKs').

On behalf of Webel, the respondent no. 2, it is

submitted that they were entrusted the job of selecting

the candidates. The procedure followed by them is

absolutely transparent. In order to identify the

applicants, the respondent no. 2 had provided the

identification numbers. After completion of the selection

process, the respondent no. 2 has submitted the final

list of selected candidates to respondent no. 1 who has

published the result. It was never within the domain of

respondent no. 2 to publish the result under the

selection process. The respondent no. 1 according to the

respondent no. 2 found in convenient to publish the

result by indicating the Aadhar number of the selected

candidates instead of giving the identification number by

respondent no. 2 as the respective Aadhar Nos were

available alongwith the online application. This cannot

be in any manner alleged to be a scam. That apart, in

any event, the respondent no. 2 says that the petitioners

have participated in the selection process and on being

unsuccessful has challenged the same. This is

impermissible in law and in view of the ratio laid down

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several of its

judgments.

After hearing the parties and considering the

materials on record, I find that the writ petition is based

on surmise and conjectures. The writ petitioners have

not been able to demonstrate any enforceable right,

they have in their favour for the infringement of which

the writ petitioners can invoke the jurisdiction of this

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court cannot be called upon to make a roving

enquiry on apprehension to stall a selection process

which has reached the final stage in the jurisdiction

invoked by the petitioners. The prayers made in the

writ petition are also ambiguous. In any event,

mandatory order directing appointment in the facts of

the case cannot be prayed for.

The writ petition is devoid of merits and is

accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.

Since I have not called for any affidavit,

allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to have

not been admitted by the respondents.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

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

necessary formalities.

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)