ANIRUEHDHA MUKHERJEE Vs. CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner joined the Calcutta Municipal Corporation as Checking Inspector in the Market Department on March 31, 1977, and was posted at College Street Market. The said post has been redesignated as Inspector, Market Deptt. He continued in that post till March 15, 1984. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Superintendent (Grade II) and was attached to the Ultadanga Municipal Market. He was then transferred to Entally Market as Superintendent (Grade II). On and from December 1, 1985, the Petitioner was further transferred to S. S. Hogg Market on administrative basis and then by an order of the Respondent No. 2 asked to look after in addition to his duties in the Entally Market, the gutted portion of the S. S Hogg Market. He is now seniormost Market Superintendent (Grade II).

(2.) An advertisement being No. 6/88 -89 of the Municipal Service Commission was published in the Statesman and also in Ananda Bazar Patrika on June 10, 1988, inviting applications for a permanent post of Senior Superintendent (Market) under the Respondent No. 1, Calcutta Municipal Corporation . The Petitioner having all the requisite qualifications for the said post applied through the proper charnel and the Municipal Service Commission fixed the date of interview on February 14, 1988. The other candidates who were all juniors to the Petitioner were asked to appear before the Interview Board. As the Petitioner was not called for the interview he made a representation to permit him to appear in the Interview Board. This was originally refused but only when the Petitioner produced the certificate to show his experience in handling revenue collection for more than the period required for getting the chance for the interview was ultimately given chance to appear in the Interview Board.

(3.) The Petitioner has now come to learn that the Municipal Service Commission has recommended the respondent No. 8 for the post and the Respondent No. 1 had decided to appoint the Respondent No. 8. The Petitioner submits that the said recommendation of the Municipal Service Commission and the decision of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation is bad and not tenable in law. The Respondent No. 8 should not have been called for interview as he lacked the requisite qualifications mentioned in the advertisement and is not an eligible candidate. The Respondent No. 8 joined the service of the Respondent No. 1 as Sergeant in the Market Department and subsequently promoted to Sergeant Grade I. The duties of the Sergeant are to so maintain the conservancy work and to maintain law and order in the market. The Respondent's own statement is that he has been officiating the post of Superintendent of Sri Gurudas Market for two years as on February 24, 1988, which means that the Respondent No. 8 has never gained experience in revenue collection in a full time employment. Moreover, the date of birth of the Petitioner being April 11, 1945, he was 43 years 3 months on the date when he applied for the post, but according to advertisement the age of the candidate shall not exceed 40 years as on January 1, 1988.