Swadesh Majumdar vs State Of West Bengal And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 6934 Cal

10.10.2023
Item No.1
gd/ssd
                             WPA(P)/522/2023
                           SWADESH MAJUMDAR
                                    VS
                     STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.


                   Mr. Arunangshu Chakraborty,
                   Mr. Arijit Bera,
                   Ms. Geniya Mukherjee,
                   Ms. Zeba Rashid,
                   Ms. Shrabani Banerjee,
                   Ms. Shaika Amrin
                                  ..for the Petitioner.

                   Mr. Samrat Sen,
                   Mr. Dipnath Roychowdhury
                                ..for the State.

                   Mr. Jaydip Kar,
                   Mr. Pijush Biswas,
                   Mr. Puspashis Gupta,
                   Mr. Abhisek Baran Das
                             ..for the Respondent Nos.3, 5, 6 and 7.

1. By way of public interest litigation the

petitioner, namely, Sri Swadesh Majumdar stating that

he is a taxpayer and social activist has approached this

court praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to

declare the decision to absorb the 51 staff of Webel

Technology Limited as direct contractual staff of Kazi

Nazrul University is being illegal and it is a nullity.

The other prayers sought for are also relating to the 51

staff who have been brought as direct contractual staff

of the respondent University.

2. In the writ petition the 51 persons whose

contractual engagement is sought to be questioned are

not made as parties. Apart from that, the decision

taken by the University to make the temporary

members of the non-teaching staff recruited through

WTL as University's own contractual staff is a decision

taken by the University for better administration.

3. In any event, the matter being purely a

service matter, no writ petition as a public interest

litigation can be entertained.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner would place reliance on the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka

and Others v. Uma Devi (3) and Others reported in

(2006) 4 SCC 1 and has referred to paragraphs 42 and

43 of the said judgment. The said decision arose out of

cases where the temporary employees had sought relief

before the Tribunal seeking absorption/regularization.

There was also a writ petition filed seeking similar

orders and there were two sets of orders passed by the

High Court and the matter ultimately travelled to the

Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. In our considered view, the decision in

Uma Devi (3) can have no application to the case on

hand, more importantly, the matter being a service

matter, a decision taken by the respondent University

to bring certain non-teaching staff as their own

contractual staff, such decision cannot be interfered

with in a public interest litigation.

6. The learned advocate has also referred to a

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

the case of State of Punjab v. Bahadur Singh and Others

reported in (2008) 15 SCC 737 and has referred to

paragraph 12 of the said judgment. In the said

paragraph several other decisions of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court have been noted and the matter

concerns a case for direct regularization in relation to

appointments which were irregular in nature.

7. In our considered view, the said decision

can have no application to the facts and circumstances

of the case.

8. Learned advocate also placed reliance on

the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MA

No.1150 of 2019 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.1921 of

2017 in Civil Appeal No.6950 of 2009 in the case of

Ranbir Singh v. S.K. Roy, Chairman, Life Insurance

Corporation and Another dated 27th April, 2022 and

has referred to paragraph 72 of the said judgment. The

said decision arose out of an order passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court and the contempt petition was

filed alleging disobedience of the order. In paragraph

72 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out that Life

Insurance Corporation as a statutory Corporation is

bound by the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution. As a public employer, the recruitment

process of the Corporation must meet the

constitutional standard of a fair and open process and

allowing for back-door entries into service is an

anathema to public service. As already pointed out, the

matter concerning a service matter cannot be decided

in a public interest litigation. Apart from that, the writ

petition also suffers from inherent error in not

impleading the relevant parties.

9. For the above reasons, the writ petition

stands dismissed as not maintainable.

10. We make it clear that the writ petition has

been dismissed as not maintainable and the merits of

the decision taken by the University have not been gone

into.

(T. S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)