Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Pinak Pani Dutta & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 5 July, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak
And
The Hon'ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi
WP.ST 441 of 2013
Sri Pinak Pani Dutta & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioners : Mr. Pijush Chaturvedi
Mr. Bikram Banerjee
Ms. Anwesha Saha
Mr. Arka Nandi
Mr. Sagar Dey
For the respondent nos.6 & 7. : Ms. Shraboni Sarkar
Heard on : July 05, 2023
Judgment on : July 05, 2023
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
1. The writ petition is directed against an order dated
September 13, 2013 passed in OA-874 of 2013.
2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the original
application finding no merit therein.
3. At the outset, learned Advocate appearing for the writ
petitioners submits that, of the writ petitioners filing the writ
petition, only writ petitioner no.2 seeks to proceed with the
writ petition.
4. In view of such submission, the writ petition survives for the
writ petitioner no.2 only. WP.ST 441 of 2013 is dismissed so
far as writ petitioner nos.1, 3 and 4 are concerned.
5. Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner no.2
submits that, the writ petitioner no.2 participated in a
selection process where the writ petitioner no.2 ranked 109
in the General category. He submits that, prior to the
initiation of the selection process, vacancies were not
declared. Vacancies were subsequently declared. He draws
the attention of the Court to the fact that two departments of
the State applied for dereservation of the posts which were
granted by the Public Service Commission. He draws the
attention of the Court to the writings of the State
Government where, certain departments of the State
Government as late as on September 23, 2013, applied for
dereservation of the posts. The Public Service Commission
did not respond thereto.
6. Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner no.2
draws the attention of the Court to the prayers made in the
original application. He submits that the prayers in the
original application are in two compartments. One
compartment is with regard to the issuance of direction
upon the concerned requisitioning departments except the
Public Works Department to forthwith initiate appropriate
steps for dereservation of respective vacancies in the post of
Assistant Engineer (Civil) and that, the other compartment
was with regard to filling up the vacancies from the
dereserved category.
7. In support of his contention that, dereservation can be
directed, he relies upon 2003 SCC OnLine Cal 713 ( Kazi
Abdul Hassem & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.).
He relies upon (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 678 ( East
Coast Railway and Another vs. Mahadev Appa Rao and
Others) for the proposition that, the authorities cannot act
arbitrarily. According to him, the Public Service Commission
acted arbitrarily in not responding to the request for
dereservation made by the various departments of the State.
8. Public Service Commission is represented.
9. Writ petitioner no.2 participated in the selection process for
the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). A panel was prepared.
Writ petitioner no.2 was placed in the rank of 109. He was
in the General category. The last empanelled candidate who
was granted appointment in the General category was Serial
No.72.
10. Apparently, some of the departments of the State applied for
dereservation which was granted by the Public Service
Commission. Subsequently, there are letters issued by the
Irrigation and Waterways Department seeking dereservation
from the Public Service Commission.
11. There are two letters issued by the Irrigation and Waterways
Department of the State of West Bengal for dereservation.
The first letter is dated July 24, 2013 where it is noted that
the panel was to expire on July 29, 2013. The second letter
is dated September 23, 2013 which is after the expiry of the
panel. The writ petitioner approached the Tribunal
sometime in July 2013 going by the date of verification of the
original application, it was filed on July 12, 2013. However,
as noted above, the panel was scheduled to expire on July
29, 2013.
12. A candidate in a selection process does not possess a vested
right in the appointment to the post. He, however, is with
the right to be considered fairly in the selection process for
the appointment to the post. Writ petitioner no.2 herein
participated in the selection process for Assistant Engineer
(Civil). He was ranked 109 in the merit list in the General
Category. The last candidate granted appointed was at
Serial No.72.
13. Kazi Abdul Hassem & Ors (supra) was rendered by a learned
Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court. Department informs us
that two appeals were preferred in respect of the judgment
and order dated January 1, 2003, being FMA 12 of 2017 and
FMA 1237 of 2017. Apparently, FMA 1237 of 2017 was
disposed of. In any event, the facts of the present case are
different from Kazi Abdul Hassem & Ors. (supra). There, the
empanelled candidates who participated in the selection of a
judicial post were governed by existing directions issued by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Moreover, although, the
vacancies were not declared prior to the commencement of
the selection process, the life of the panel prepared
apparently did not expire. Directions were passed in light of
the subsisting orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
governing such field.
14. East Coast Railway and Another (supra) considers
arbitrariness in a selection process. There, a selection
process to a post was cancelled without giving any reasons.
In such context, the Supreme Court held that, any
administrative decision is required to be informed with
reasons. It discussed about the concept of arbitrariness. In
the facts of the present case, the authorities did not cancel
the selection process.
15. Essentially, the writ petitioner no.2 seeks a direction upon
the Public Service Commission to dereserve a post.
Dereservation is within the domain of the Public Service
Commission. A candidate in a selection process cannot be
said to be vested with a right to seek dereservation of a post
which is otherwise governed by the reservation policy.
16. Moreover, there are various parameters for the purpose of
dereservation. It is not the case of the writ petitioner no.2
that all the parameters required for dereservation stood
fulfilled and that the Public Service Commission did not
dereserve a post despite fulfillment of such conditions.
17. In such circumstances, we find no merit in the present writ
petition.
18. WP.ST 441 of 2013 is dismissed without any order as to
costs.
(Debangsu Basak,J.)
19. I Agree.
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
(AD)
