Dipen Roy vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 6317 Cal

    42
20.09.2023
Ct. No. 15
  adeb




                                 W.P.A. 2313 of 2016

                                  Dipen Roy
                                       Vs.
                          The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                Mr. Syed Mansur Ali
                                            ...for the petitioner

                Mr. Arjun Roy
                Mr. Subhendu Sengupta
                                            ...for the State

                   Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner

             is taken on record.

                   Writ   petition    has been    instituted, inter alia,

             praying for engagement of the petitioner as Tax Collector

             of Indong Matiali       Gram Panchayat, District-Jalpaiguri

             based on appointment letter dated 8th October, 2009

             issued by the Pradhan of the aforesaid gram panchayat.

             Prayer (a) of the writ petition is quoted below:-

                   a) A writ of or in the nature of mandamus
                      commanding the respondents, their agents,

servants, subordinates, employees particularly the Pradhan of Indong Matiali Gram Panchayat, being respondent no. 7 to allow the petitioner to join his duty as panchayat tax collector in terms of the appointment letter forthwith and release all arrear salaries from the date of issuance of appointment letter being Annexure "P/2"to this petition.

On perusal of the said prayer (a) it appears that

petitioner prayed for engagement as tax collector in the

aforesaid gram panchayat based on appointment letter

dated 8th October, 2009. It has also been submitted on

behalf of the petitioner that another appointment letter

was issued in his favour dated 29th April, 2013 by the

Pradhan of aforesaid gram panchayat in consideration of

his participation in the selection process held in the year

2011. It has been submitted that though there is no

specific prayer made in this writ petition for appointment

of the petitioner based on second appointment letter

dated 29th April, 2013 necessary direction needs to be

issued for petitioner's engagement as tax collector on the

basis of the appointment letter dated 29th April, 2013.

The learned advocate representing the State-

respondents including Block Development Officer, Matiali

Development Block, being respondent no. 6 has opposed

the writ petition based on a letter dated 4th February,

2016 issued by the said Block Development Officer to the

District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri. Copy of the said letter

dated 4th February, 2016 is placed before this Court and

the same is taken on record.

From the said letter dated 4th February, 2016 it

appears that in spite of issuance of appointment letter in

connection with the selection process of 2009 the

petitioner did not join the post of tax collector. It has

further been stated in the said letter of the concerned

Block Development Officer that in 2011 selection process

which was conducted by the concerned respondent

authority for appointment of tax collector in the

aforesaid gram panchayat petitioner could not qualify.

Therefore, according to the State-respondents the relief

prayed for in this writ petition may not be accepted.

Having considered the submissions made on behalf

of the parties and in consideration of the materials

available on record it appears that in spite of being

selected for being engaged as tax collector in the

aforesaid gram panchayat and issuance of appointment

letter dated 8th October, 2009 petitioner did not join the

post. However, relating to the selection of the petitioner

in 2011 selection process though appointment letter

dated 29th April, 2013 is annexed to this writ petition at

page 24, but it appears from the letter dated 4th

February, 2016 issued by the Block Development Officer

that petitioner could not qualify the selection process

conducted in 2011. Therefore, it transpires that

selection of the petitioner as tax collector in 2011 is a

disputed issue. If this Court proceeds on the premise

that the petitioner was selected in 2011 selection process

then question comes up why he did not join the post

based on the appointment letter dated 29th April, 2013

though argument has been made on behalf of the

petitioner that he was not allowed to join. Then the

petitioner was required to approach this Court with the

writ petition within the reasonable time after being

refused to join the post of tax collector in 2013, but the

present writ petition has been instituted on 9th

February, 2016, approximately three years after issuance

of appointment letter in favour of the petitioner which is

dated 29th April, 2013.

Such delay in approaching the Court is found to be

fatal in view of the norms relating to engagement as tax

collector since such engagement is on contractual basis

for a period of 2 years with a mandatory provision for

renewal of such contract after expiry of 2 years.

In the present case petitioner pursuant to the first

appointment letter dated 8th October, 2009 did not join

the post and subsequently on issuance of second

appointment letter dated 29th April, 2013 waited till 9th

February, 2016 and then filed the present writ petition,

by that time contractual service period of 2 years was

over, if the same is counted from the month of May, 2013

in consideration of the date of appointment letter dated

29th April, 2013.

It is true that there is no statutory provision of

limitation for filing the writ petition from the date of

cause of action but the same as needs to be filed within

the reasonable time and the Supreme Court in the

judgment of Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India & Ors.

reported in (2007) 9 SCC 274 has held that period of

three years should be treated as reasonable period.

In view of above conspectus this Court is not

inclined to interfere with the writ petition and

accordingly the same is dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if

applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual

undertakings.

(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)