Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Samiran Santra & 29 Others vs Syed Mohammad Ali & Others on 4 October, 2023
04.10.2023
rpan/19
MAT 1312 of 2023
+
IA No.: CAN No. 1 of 2023
[Sec. 5]
+
IA No.: CAN No. 2 of 2023
[Leave to appeal]
+
IA No.: CAN No. 3 of 2023
[Stay]
Samiran Santra & 29 Others
- Versus -
Syed Mohammad Ali & Others
Mr. Arkadipta Sengupta
... for the Applicants/Appellants.
Mr. Shamik Chatterjee,
Mr. Aditya Bikram Mahata,
Mr. Sahil Kabir
... for the Respondent nos.1-5/
Writ Petitioners.
Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, Ld. AGP
Mr. Subrata Guha Biswas
... for the State/Respondents.
Mr. Sengupta, learned advocate appearing for the
applicants submits that the applicants participated in a
selection process for appointment to the post of
'Banasahayaks'. Upon emerging to be successful in the
said selection process, they were empanelled and
appointed. They are working in the said post since the
year 2020. Suddenly, in the month of May, 2023 they
came to learn that the concerned selection process was
challenged by some unsuccessful candidates in a writ
petition, being WPA 8506 of 2021 and the same was heard
and disposed of setting aside the entire selection process
by an order dated 3rd May, 2003. The applicants were not
impleaded in the writ petition. The said order adversely
affects their rights and as such they may be granted leave
to prefer appeal against the said order condoning a delay
of 86 days in preferring the same.
Mr. Deb Roy, learned advocate enters appearance on
behalf of the State/respondents and submits that after
cancellation of the said selection process, a new
notification was issued but in other appeals preferred by
the selected candidates, the operation of the new
notification and the order dated 3 rd May, 2003 have been
stayed.
Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the
respondent nos.1 to 5/writ petitioners denies and disputes
the contention of the applicants.
Upon hearing the learned advocate appearing for the
respective parties and considering the materials on record,
we are satisfied with the explanation given towards delay
in filing the application for leave to appeal. Such delay is
condoned and the application, being IA No.: CAN No. 1 of
2023 is disposed of.
As the applicants were the selected candidates and
as the entire selection process had been cancelled without
hearing them, we are of the opinion liberty needs to be
granted to the applicants to prefer the appeal against the
impugned judgment dated 3rd May, 2023 passed in the writ
petition, being WPA No.8506 of 2021 since the said order
adversely affects their rights.
Accordingly, the applicants are granted leave to
prefer appeal against the order dated 3rd May, 2003 passed
in the writ petition being WPA 8506 of 2021 and the
application for leave to appeal, being IA No.: CAN No. 2 of
2023 is disposed of. The office is directed to register the
appeal.
In connection with the appeal an application for
stay, being IA No.: CAN No. 3 of 2023 has also been filed.
Considering the arguments as advanced, we direct that
there shall be an interim order of stay of operation of the
order dated 3rd May, 2023 passed in WPA No.8506 of 2021
and the notification dated 19th May, 2023 till the end of
November, 2023 or until further orders, whichever is
earlier.
We have been informed by the parties that similar
appeals have been fixed for final hearing along with the
connected stay applications on 9th October, 2023.
In view thereof, list the present matter in the daily
supplementary list of this Court on 9 th October, 2023 as
fixed at 2.00 p.m.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of
all requisite formalities.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)
