DEBABRATA KUNDU Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS were all having qualifications of BHMS (MD.) being eligible for the post of Lecturer in Homoeopathic Medical Colleges in West Bengal. They all applied for the post of Demonstrator as per advertisement dated July 6, 2002 issued by the Department of Health and Family Welfare. They also deposited requisite fees for the said purpose. Up till 2008 the Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as PSC) who published the advertisement and responsible for holding such selection process, did not communicate to the petitioners about the fate of their applications. Vide communication dated April 17, 2008 PSC refunded their fees and thus formally cancelled the process of recruitment in the post of Demonstrator.

(2.) IN the mean time the post of Demonstrator was changed to Lecturer. The petitioner claimed that they should have been considered for the post of Lecturer as per the original advertisement. The authority however declined to act upon such request. The authority filled up the post of the Lecturer by two batches, one by appointing Medical Officers from Health Service on ad hoc basis and thereafter regularizing them and the other batch of freshers through a subsequent advertisement of 2008 and the petitioners were debarred from participating in such process being age barred by that time.

(3.) THE petitioners approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.5 of 2009 principally challenging the advertisement published in the newspaper for holding a fresh selection process as well as regularization of the medical officers in the post of Lecturer. THE petitioners- principal contention before the Tribunal as appearing from the judgment and order impugned, was as follows :- i) Since the petitioner challenged an illegality they had locus standi to maintain the same. ii) As per the notification of the Government published in 2002, as also in 2007 West Bengal Homoeopathic Health Service was segregated from Homoeopathic Education Service and the persons working in Health Service could not be appointed in Education Service. iii) THE petitioners being the aspirants for the post of Lecturer were ready and willing to apply for the same pursuant to an earlier advertisement that was cancelled illegally. iv) Advertisement dated June 28, 2008 was prima facie illegal and not in accordance with the Rules of 1983 promulgated by the Central Government for Homoeopathic Health Service and Homoeopathic Education Service. v) As per advertisement of 2008 there was no scope for age relaxation although the Rules would inter alia provide so.