Tanmoy Chatterjee vs The State Of West Bengal & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3661 Cal

06.06.2023 Item 16 to 18 Court No.6.

AB R.V.W. 111 of 2020 In WPST 78 of 2020

Tanmoy Chatterjee Vs The State of West Bengal & Others

With

R.V.W. 13 of 2021 In WPST 79 of 2020

Subhas Chandra Patra Vs The State of West Bengal & Others

With

R.V.W. 14 of 2021 In WPST 82 of 2020

Anup Kumar Sarkar Vs The State of West Bengal & Others

Mr. Debasish Kundu, Mr. Souma Subhra Ray, Ms. Susmita Mondal ....For the Review Applicants.

Mr. Tapan Kr. Mukherjee, Ms. Debdooti Dutta....For the State.

A Judgment and Order dated November 20,

2020, whereby five writ petitions being WPST 78 of

2020, WPST 79 of 2020, WPST 80 of 2020, WPST 81 of

2020 and WPST 82 of 2020 were dismissed, is under

review in the present three applications at the instance

of three of the writ petitioners.

The petitioners challenged an order passed by

the State Administrative Tribunal refusing to interfere

and direct the State Government to consider the

applications of the petitioners for being considered for

regular recruitment simply on the premises that they

were contractual employees as Drivers for quite

sometime and were eligible for preferential treatment,

particularly, because of the fact that some of them

have crossed the age limit for direct recruitment. A

Coordinate Bench noticed that the petitioners had

been invited for direct recruitment. The Coordinate

Bench dismissed the writ petitions observing as

follows:

"We have perused the impugned order of the Tribunal which has been rendered after considering the binding judicial precedent of this Court that having regard to the quality of employment as contractual appointees the petitioners could not claim any preferential treatment either for regularization or preferential treatment while persons are recruited under the direct recruitment process. The substantive rules and the notification do not provide for modifying the age limit as regards persons who are employed as contract appointees. The recruitment process has not yet been completed but that does not mean that the contract appointees could be provided any preferential treatment as sought for by the petitioners."

Three of the writ petitioners have sought review

of the said judgment and order by filing these three

review applications.

Learned Advocate for the review applicants relies

on the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in the

case of Gobinda Chandra Mondal Vs Principal

Rabindra Mahavidyalaya & Others reported in

2013(1) CHN 9 and on the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs

Surendra Mohnot & Others reported in (2014) 14

SCC 77. Learned Counsel also relies on the Supreme

Court decision in the case of Ajoy Debbarma &

Others Vs State of Tripura & Others rendered in

Civil Appeal No.2868 of 2020.

Insofar as the case of Gobinda Chandra Mondal

is concerned, a Division Bench of this Court in WPST

109 of 2021 (The State of West Bengal & Others Vs

Chandra Kanta Ray & Others), by a judgment and

order dated November 28, 2022, has held that the

judgment in Gobinda Chandra Mondal's case is per

incuriam inasmuch as it did not take note of the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

State of Orissa & Another Vs Mamata Mohanty

reported in (2011)3 SCC 436.

The Division Bench further observed that the

order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's

case reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 was under Article 142

of the Constitution of India and did not lay down any

general law to the effect that contractual workers must

be absorbed permanently, if they have been working

for a long time.

The case of Ajoy Debbarma was relied upon by

learned Counsel in support of his submission that the

State is always at liberty to relax the age restriction. It

may be so, however, the Court cannot direct the State

to relax age restriction particularly when there is no

such provision in the relevant advertisement or the

applicable Recruitment Rules. In our opinion, the

decision in the case of Ajoy Debbarma is in no manner

relevant in the facts of the present case.

Insofar as the case of State of Rajasthan Vs

Surendra Mohnot (supra) is concerned, the same is an

authority for the proposition that nothing in Article

226 of the Constitution precludes the High Court from

exercising power of review which inheres in every

Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of

justice or to correct grave and palpable errors

committed by it. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

clarified that such power is to be exercised only when

there is error apparent on face of the record or when

there is discovery of new matter or evidence, which

after exercise of due diligence, was not within the

knowledge of the person seeking review or could not be

produced by him at the time the order under review

was made. In the present case, in the order under

review, we do not find any such error. Nor is the case

where new material has come to light after the order

under review was passed which could not have been

discovered by the review applicants at the relevant

time.

The order under review was passed after hearing

both sides and on merits. It may be, according to the

review applicants, a wrong order. However, in that

event, the remedy of the applicants would be by way of

appeal before a higher forum. A review application

cannot be an appeal in disguise. The Coordinate

Bench considered the order of the State Administrative

Tribunal and was of the opinion that there was no

infirmity in the Tribunal's order. Hence, the writ

petitions were dismissed. We find no reason to review

the judgment and order dated November 20, 2020.

The review applications being RVW 111 of 2020,

RVW 13 of 2021 and RVW 14 of 2021 are, accordingly,

dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be supplied expeditiously after compliance

with all the necessary formalities.

(Arijit Banerjee, J.)

(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)