Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ar vs Sk. Nazim Ahmed & Ors on 13 September, 2023
15 13.9.2023
&
16 MAT 1357 of 2016
with
Ct-08
I.A No. CAN 1of 2016(Old CAN No. 9324 of 2016)
CAN 2 of 2021
Subrata Kumar Das
ar Vs.
Sk. Nazim Ahmed & Ors.
with
MAT 1356 of 2016
with
I.A No. CAN 1of 2016(Old CAN No. 9320 of 2016)
Principal Panskura Banamali College
Vs.
Sk. Nazim Ahmed & Ors.
Mr. Ekramul Bari
Sk. Imtiaj Uddin
... For the Appellant in
MAT 1357 of 2016
Mr. Joydeep Kar, Sr. Adv
Mr. Kumaresh Dalal
... For the Respondent
College in MAT 1357 of 2016
&
For the Appellant in
MAT 1356 of 2016
1. Both the appeals are heard together and
disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The recruitment process for filling up five
vacant non-teaching posts in Panskura Banamali
College (hereinafter referred to the college) was
not challenged before the learned Single Judge.
The five posts were to be filled up by a General
candidate, a candidate belonging to 'Exempted
Category' a 'Scheduled Caste' candidate, a
'Scheduled Tribe' candidate and a candidate
belonging to 'OBC-A' category.
3. Mr. Joydeep Kar, learned counsel
representing the College, has submitted that
recently the petitioner has informed that he is no
more interested in the said posts as he has
joined the Army. Be that as it may, as it involves
recruitment process in a Government aided
college it has to be transparent and follow the
guidelines in order to ascertain whether the
selection process was proper. Learned Single
Judge has called for a report from the D.P.I upon
consideration of the documents accompanying
for approval the following points which are noted
below:-
(i) No Resolution of the Governing Body of the
college regarding formation of selection
committee mentioning the name and
designation of the selectors was made
available;
(ii) No evidence of notice hung up on the college
notice board and published in other public
places in regard to recruitment process was
made available;
(iii) Although 2(two) advertisements were
required to be issued in terms of the extant
Government Order-1(one) in an English daily
and the other in a vernacular daily having
wide circulation, advertisements were
published in vernacular dailies only (although
it has been erroneously recorded that 'Sambad
Pratidin' and 'Bartaman' are English dailies);
(iv) There was no evidence of call letters
having been issued to the candidates to
appear at an interview. The relevant
Government Order required sending of all
letters by post, which was observed in the
breach; and
(v) From the papers furnished, it could not be
conclusively proved that the college informed
the petitioner of the date of interview."
4. Mr. Kar has submitted that the College
has filed an application to disclose few
documents that could not be produced before the
learned Single Judge at the time of consideration
of the said application. However, it has been
fairly submitted that three of the documents
have been disclosed where part of the record
appears to have not been considered by the
learned Single Judge.
5. The findings of the learned Single Judge
indicates that the Principle of the college initially
called for interview. However there was no
evidence of issuing call letters to appear in the
interview. It further appears that the said
selection process suffered from favoritism and
nepotism. It is also evident from the fact that a
member of the Governing body of the college
prior to the date of interview on 30th November,
2013 had expressed an apprehension that the
selection committee had already decided to
appoint, inter alia, three aspirants, one each
from the 'OBC', 'General' and 'Exempted
Category' candidates and based on the ultimate
results it can be seen that two of them, one from
OBC and one from General were selected and
appointed as clerks. It is an admitted position
that the college is a non-Government aided
college and is run on the basis of the funds
provided by the Government. The appointment of
incumbents to the non-teaching posts and their
salary whereof is borne by the Government
amounts to public employment. The learned
Single Judge has rightly said that the selection
process for filling up the post of clerk by a
'General' category candidate shall be
transparent.
6. Mr. Kar has submitted that the writ
petitioner having joined the Army there may not
be any necessity to call for any fresh recruitment
and fresh interview may be held for the
candidates who had participated in the selection
process for the General category. We could have
readily agreed with the submission made by Mr.
Kar but for the observations made by the learned
Single Judge in this regard, which is reproduced
below:-
"It has been brought to the notice of this
Bench that insofar as the 'General'
candidates are concerned who were
competing for appointment on 1(one) post
only, 64 candidates had offered their
candidate and 31 had taken the written
examination. However, only 35 candidates
were called upon to attend interview for
recruitment to all 5(five) vacant non-teaching
posts and of them only 18 had appeared for
the interview meaning thereby that a little
less than 50% of the qualified candidates
abstained from the interview. According to
Mr. Bhattacharya, such huge percentage of
candidates abstaining from attending the
interview lends credence to the petitioner's
claim that the version of the Principal of the
college, as submitted through Ms. Maity, is
baseless and concocted.
It is absurd, to say the least, when
even the written examination is yet to be
complete and the merits of the candidates yet
to be assessed, to let all of them know the
date of interview."
7. In view of the above we do not find any
reason to interfere with the order passed by the
learned Single Judge. However, in the event
any fresh recruitment process is initiated for
the General category candidate, Mr. Subrata
Kumar Das, the appellant in MAT 1357 of
2016, may participate in the said recruitment
process by waving his age bar. It is needless to
mention that the recruitment process should be
transparent and fair.
8. In view of the aforesaid order both the
appeals being MAT 1357 of 2016 and MAT 1356
of 2016 stand disposed of.
9. In view of disposal of the appeals CAN
9324 of 2016 and CAN 2 of 2021 in connection
with MAT 1357 of 2016 and CAN 9320 of 2016 in
connection with MAT 1356 of 2016 are also
disposed of.
6. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
7. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this
order, if applied for, be given to the parties on
usual undertaking.
(Uday Kumar, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)
