Rajesh Maity vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6706 Cal

S/L 2
19.09.2022
Court. No. 19
GB
                              W.P.A. 16673 of 2022

                                   Rajesh Maity
                                        VS
                          The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                Mr. Tarun Kumar Das,
                Mr. Haripada Nayak.
                                                         ... for the Petitioner.
                Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharya,
                Mr. Mrinal Kanti Biswas.
                                                              ... for the State.

                       The petitioner has made out an arguable case. The

                petitioner was appointed on contractual basis as a 'Collecting

                Sarkar' of Manjushree Gram Panchayat. Such appointment

                appears to be with the approval of the Government of West

                Bengal, as the records reveal that the Block Development

                Officer, Egra-II Development Block had been informed

                about such engagement. The contract of the petitioner had

                been renewed from time to time. The collecting sarkars are

                responsible for collecting taxes in panchayat areas. During

                the subsistence of one of such contract, the District Level

                Selection Committee and the District Panchayat and Rural

                Development Officer, Purba Medinipur had issued a notice

                to the Block Development Officer dated March 8, 2022 for

                supply of particulars of 'Collecting Sarkars' of the Gram

                Panchayats with all relevant information for the purpose of

                the recruitment to the post of 'Gram Panchayat Karmee',

                from existing eligible Tax Collectors.

                       The name of the petitioner was recommended. The

                petitioner claims that the petitioner is entitled to age

                relaxation of 1 year 4 days. During the subsistence of his
                                2




contract with the panchayat authorities as a 'collecting

sarkar', he had crossed the age bar of 45 years. The

petitioner has worked as a collecting sarkar for more than 10

years. During the first recruitment drive the petitioner did

not have the experience. During the next recruitment drive

the petitioner had crossed the age bar.

       Ms. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing on

behalf of the State respondents submits that the rules do not

permit any relaxation and as such, the petitioner cannot be

given such age relaxation.

Both parties have placed reliance on different

judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and of this Court. There

are contrary views. Affidavit-in-opposition is required in

order to ascertain the nature of work the petitioner was

doing, so that the decisions relied upon by the parties can be

analyzed with the facts.

However, balance of convenience is in favour of the

petitioner. If the petitioner is not allowed to participate and

the process of recruitment is completed, the petitioner will

suffer irreparable loss and injury and such action cannot be

reversed. The petitioner may be allowed to participate in the

proposed selection process. If the petitioner is unsuccessful,

the matter will automatically be resolved. In case, the

petitioner is successful, the petitioner will not claim any

equity. The appointment letter will not be issued. Selection

of the petitioner shall be subject to the final decision of the

writ petition. The appointment letters to other successful

candidates will be issued.

Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within one week

after ensuing puja vacation; reply thereto, if any, be filed

within two weeks thereafter.

List this matter in the month of December, 2022

under the heading 'Hearing'. Liberty to mention.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)