Sourav Das & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 2374 Cal

     10.04.23
83   Ct. No.25
      Sws.M
                                             WPA 23157 of 2022

                                            Sourav Das & Ors.
                                                    Vs.
                                      The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                       Mr. Chittapriya Ghosh
                       Mr. Samir Kumar Adhikari
                                             ....for the petitioners

                       Mr. Shaunak Ghosh
                       Mr. Anindya Sundar Das

                                                  ...for the respondent No. 8

Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick Mr. Sayan Ganguly ...for the State

The grievance of the petitioners is that they have

not been selected for 'Aapda Mitra Scheme' training

despite having the necessary eligibility criteria. By an

order dated March 1, 2023 this Court directed the

State to file an additional report on affidavit on the

issue whether the candidates whose names appeared

at page 6 of the exception to the report affirmed on

January 20, 2023 possessed prior experience

certificates in disaster response operations.

Furthermore, it had to be explained how the 'cutoff'

marks was determined for the said candidates.

Such report on affidavit and exception thereto

are filed in Court today and retained with the records.

This Court finds that the standard criteria for

selection of community volunteers to be trained under

'Aapda Mitra Scheme' was issued by the District

Magistrate and Controller of Civil Defence, Jhargram

on July 14, 2022. The standard criteria are as follows:

" 1) Age group from 18 to 40 years/ may be relaxed for Ex-army Officers, retired Medical Professionals, Civil Engineers (as on 01.07.2022).

2) Must be resident of the District of Jhargram.

3) education at least 7th Standard Pass

4) Be in good physical, mental and emotional health (Medical Fitness Certificate mandatory)

5) Prior experience of volunteering in disaster response operations would be preferable."

Mr. Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioners submits that Clause 5 of the Standard

Criteria has to be considered along with the other four

criteria for selection. Preference under Clause 5 should

not be given only in cases whether the candidates have

received same marks and there was a question of tie

between the candidates. He submits that in the event

the petitioners were given preference/weightage under

Clause 5 then the petitioners would have been eligible

to be sent for training under the said scheme.

He cites a judgment reported in (1993)2 SCC

310 (Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. P. Dilip

Kumar and another). He submits that when there is

a question of preference then that should also be a

relevant criteria in choosing the candidates whether or

not there is a question of tie amongst the candidates.

Considering the rival submissions of the parties

and the materials placed on record this Court finds

that the first four Clauses of the notice dated June 14,

2022 were mandatory. The Clause with regard 'age'

could only be relaxed in case of Ex-army Officers,

retired Medical Professionals, Civil Engineers (as on

01.07.2022).

Clause 5 of the standard criteria clearly

stipulates that prior experience of volunteering in

disaster response operations would be preferable. The

said criteria is not mandatory.

The authorities have decided that only in the

event of a tie existing between the candidates in

respect of the first four mandatory criteria of selection

the Clause 5 shall be considered for giving preference.

This Court finds no infirmity or arbitrariness in

such a policy/administrative decision of the

authorities concerned.

The case of P. Dilip Kumar (supra) is

distinguishable on facts. The selection to the post as

per the Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service Rules was

to be made from the post-graduate engineers. Since

sufficient number of post graduate engineers were not

available, the graduates could also be selected for

appointment to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer

in different engineering services in the state of Andhra

Pradesh. In such a case the Apex Court held that the

zone of consideration was narrowed by giving

preference to the post-graduate candidates first and

thereafter to the graduate candidates. The

classification on the basis of higher educational

qualification with a view to achieve improvement in

administrative performance is not abhorrent to Article

14/16 of the Constitution. In the present case the

petitioners cannot in any way argue that they were

better qualified than the candidates who were sent for

'Aapda Mitra Scheme' training. In fact the petitioners

secured less marks in respect of the mandatory

criteria. Since the petitioners secured less marks in

respect of the mandatory criteria they wanted the

preferential criteria to be included for assessment of

their eligibility. The employer is best suited to

determine the relevancy and suitability of any post. It

is not for the Courts to consider and assess. The view

of this Court finds support in an Apex Court judgment

reported in (2021)12 SCC 80 (Chief Manager, Pubjab

National Bank & Anr. vs. Amit Kumar Das).

To the mind of this Court, such a course is not

permissible. Therefore, the case of P. Dilip Kumar

(supra) does not come to the aid of the writ petitioners.

In the light of the discussion above, WPA 23157

of 2022 is dismissed.

All parties to act on a server copy of this order

downloaded from the official website of this Court.

Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be supplied to the parties, subject to

compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Lapita Banerji, J)