29.08.23 vs Sl-02 The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 5689 Cal

                                WPA 8806 of 2018
                                    Saurav Das
29.08.23                                v.
 Sl-02                    The State of West Bengal & Ors.
 Ct.11
 (S.R.)    Mr. Shaunak Ghosh
           Mr. Anindya Sundar Das               ... for the petitioner.

           Mr. Syed Mansur Ali
           Mr. Sk. Imtiaj Uddin                 ... for the College.


                 A disengaged casual Group-'D' employee of the

           Narasinha Dutt College (in short, the said College) has

           knocked the door of this Court seeking cancellation of a

           communication dated 31st May, 2018 whereby he was

           terminated w.e.f. 1st June, 2018 and his re-engagement

           in the post.

                 Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the

           petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged as a

           Group-'D' staff on a temporary basis and pursuant to the

           letter of appointment dated 04.06.2012, he joined in the

           post on 5th June, 2012. Subsequent thereto, the college

           authority initiated a selection process to appoint regular

           Group-D employee. The petitioner participated in the said

           selection process but he could not emerge as a successful

           candidate.

                   Mr. Ghosh contends that there was lack of

           transparency in the selection process and the selection

           committee committed illegality in selecting the candidates

           for the posts and hence, the writ petitioner along with
                   2




some other candidates preferred a writ petition vide. W.P.

no. 4077(W) of 2018. Since the petitioner had approached

the court with an allegation of commission of illegalities

by the selection committee in conducting the selection

process, the college authority was infuriated. Consequent

thereon, the respondent no.4 issued a notice dated 15th

March, 2018 asking the petitioner to show cause, within

24 hours, seeking satisfactory answers from the

petitioners in respect of some allegations levelled against

the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply

on 16.3.2018. Subsequent thereto, by an order dated 31st

May, 2018, the writ petitioner was disengaged. According

to Mr. Ghosh although the writ petitioner is a casual

employee but since his disengagement or termination is

punitive one, he is entitled to get benefit the provisions

under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. To lend

support to his such contention, he places reliance upon a

judgment of Delhi High Court delivered in the case of

Mangal Singh v. Chairman, National Research Development

Corporation & Ors., reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Del

2345. He arduously contends that the college authority

should have been given an opportunity to the petitioner to

defend himself in respect of the allegations brought

against him. He submits that letter of termination may be

cancelled and direction may be given upon the college

authority to re-engage the petitioner in the post.

Mr. Ali, learned advocate appearing for the college

submits that the petitioner was engaged as a Group-'D'

employee purely on temporarily basis. Subsequently, the

college authority conducted a selection process and the

regular Group-'D' employees have been appointed. He

submits that the service of the petitioner was no longer

required and hence, he was terminated. According to Mr.

Ali, such termination cannot be stated to be a punitive

termination. He submits that one casual employee cannot

claim any vested right to the post and he also cannot

claim that a full-fledged disciplinary enquiry is to be

conducted against him before his termination as it is done

in respect of a regular and permanent employee. He

contends that the judgment relied upon by Mr. Ghosh will

not come in aid of the petitioner.

Heard the learned advocates. Perused the materials

placed before me.

Indisputably, the petitioner was appointed and/or

engaged as a Group-'D' employee on purely temporary

basis. Admittedly, by a notice dated 15th March, 2018 the

petitioner was asked to submit his explanation in respect

of certain allegations levelled against him and the

petitioner also submitted his explanation but the letter of

termination does not indicate that the petitioner was

terminated on any allegation of misconduct.

There is no scintilla of doubt regarding binding

effect of the proposition of law laid down in the judgments

referred in the decision of the Delhi High Court rendered

in case of Mangal Singh v. Chairman, National Research

Development Corporation & Ors.(supra), that even one

casual employee or probationer is entitled to get the

protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India if

his order of termination indicates that the termination is a

result of punishment sought to be imposed upon him but

the judgment is distinguishable on facts.

In the letter whereby the petitioner was terminated,

there is no indication that the petitioner had terminated

on any allegation of misconduct and from the letter of

termination it cannot be inferred that the termination is

punitive in nature. The petitioner was disengaged as the

college authority felt that his service was no longer

required.

In such sequence of facts, I am of the considered

view that the petitioner is not entitled to claim protection

under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and the

petitioner cannot claim that a full-fledged disciplinary

enquiry was required to be conducted against him before

his termination.

In view thereof, no interference is called for in the

present writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition

stands dismissed.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied

for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)