Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Arunangsu Chakraborty vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 25 August, 2023
Form No. J.(2)
Item No.2
Ct. No. 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
HEARD ON: 24.08.2023 & 25.08.2023
DELIVERED ON: 25.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
W.P.A. 8294 of 2017
Arunangsu Chakraborty
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Appearance:-
Mr. Anuranan Samanta
Mr. Arpan Sinha .........for the petitioner
Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee
Ms. Anam Zafar .............for the High Court Administration
Mr. Santanu Kr. Mitra
Mr. Amartya Pal .............for the State
Mr. Suman Basu .............for the respondent no. 10
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated June 29, 2016 of
the learned District Judge, Burdwan and for issuance of a writ in the
nature of mandamus allowing the petitioner to switch over to Schedule-'A'
post and to direct incorporation of his name in the gradation list of
Schedule-'A' English Stenographers.
2. Pursuant to an advertisement published in the year 2007 by the Public
Service Commission (for short 'P.S.C') for recruitment examination 2007 for
the post of English Stenographers, petitioner participated in the said
examination. Petitioner was appointed as Stenographer/P.A. in the office of
the learned District Judge, Burdwan which falls under Schedule-'B'
category. Petitioner claims that when he applied for appointment to the
post of English Stenographer, in the application format, it was specifically
indicated that his first preference is that of posts under Schedule-'A'
category.
3. Petitioner applied for switching over to the 'A' Scheduled post under any
Secretariat office on October 14, 2015. The petitioner is aggrieved for non-
consideration of his prayer for switching over to the Schedule-'A' post by
the concerned authorities.
4. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that since the
petitioner indicated his preference for appointment in posts under
Schedule-'A', the authorities ought to have allowed the petitioner to switch
over to Schedule-'A' post from Schedule-'B' post in which he was appointed
in the year 2008. The learned advocate for the petitioner further contends
that petitioner raised objections against the draft publication of the
gradation list but the authorities without considering such objection
published the final gradation list.
5. Mr. Mitra, learned advocate representing the State submits that the
petitioner was initially appointed under Schedule-'B' post. He accepted
such appointment. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to Grade-II
English Stenographer from Grade-III English Stenographer, which was also
accepted by the petitioner. Petitioner was ultimately promoted to Grade-I
English Stenographer, which has also been accepted by the petitioner. He
submits that the petitioner at this point of time cannot be allowed to switch
over to Schedule-'A' post from Schedule-'B' post.
6. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate representing the High Court administration
submits that the grievance of the petitioner is directed against the P.S.C.,
who recommended the name of the petitioner for being appointed to
Schedule-'B' post. He further submits that no allegation has been made in
the writ petition against the High Court administration, which, according to
Mr. Banerjee, will be evident from the submissions made by the learned
advocate for the petitioner.
7. The learned advocate representing the 10 th respondent submits that no
allegation has been made against the 10 th respondent.
8. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials
placed.
9. It is evident from the materials on record that P.S.C. recommended the
petitioner for appointment to the vacant post of English Stenographer
(Schedule-'B') on September 8, 2008. Thereafter the petitioner was
interviewed on September 24, 2008 and after verification of his certificates
and testimonials, he was appointed in the post of Schedule'-B' English
Stenographer in the office of the District Judge, Burdwan. Petitioner
accepted such appointment in the year 2008.
10. In terms of G.O. No. 5144-J dated July 20, 2009 and G.O. No. 5145-J
dated July 20,2009 issued as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court passed on February 11, 2009 for implementation of the
recommendations of Shetty Commission, the posts of
Stenographers/Personal Assistants of the District Judiciary were classified
into 3 grades. The name of the petitioner was published in List B
containing the names of Stenographers-Grade-II vide Office Order No.
30(M) dated July 30, 2012 issued from the office of the District Judge.
Petitioner was classified as Stenographer Grade-II with effect from January
1, 2011. Thereafter the name of the petitioner was published in the
proposed gradation list as on January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2013 in
respect of Stenographers/Personal Assistants of Burdwan Judgeship and
the name of the petitioner was appearing under serial no. 41.
11. In the office memorandum dated March 21, 2014, opportunity was given to
the staffs to submit their objections and views against the said proposed
gradation list. However, it does not appear from the records that the
petitioner raised any objection or tendered his views against the proposed
gradation list. Thereafter, the process for promotion of the Stenographers in
the cadre of Stenographer Grade-I was initiated and the name of the
petitioner was included under serial no. 8, as would be evident from the
Order No. 119 (G) dated May 30, 2016. The petitioner was promoted to the
cadre of Stenographer Grade-I vide Office Order No. 28(M) dated June 28,
2016.
12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner accepted the promotion to Grade-II
English Stenographer and thereafter to Grade-I English Stenographer. In
spite of being afforded opportunities to raise objection/tender views against
the proposed gradation list, the petitioner did not raise any objection at the
relevant point of time. It further appears from the letter dated June 22,
2016, which is annexed at page-60 of the affidavit in opposition that the
petitioner expressed his willingness for promotion to the cadre of
Stenographer/P.A. Grade-I of the District Judgeship of Burdwan.
13. From the representation dated June 10, 2016 it appears that the petitioner
prayed for enlistment of his name in the State Gradation List.
14. It is too late in the day for the petitioner to turn around and contend that
the petitioner was not recommended for the post under Schedule-'A'.
Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner to switch over to Schedule-'A' post at
this point of time cannot be allowed. The decision of the District Judge
dated June 29, 2016 insofar as the publication of the gradation list is
concerned, is a reasoned one and no interference is called for by this Court
sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
15. For all the reasons, as aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to grant any
relief in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands
dismissed.
16. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.
17. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to
the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities.
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
Pallab AR(Ct.)
