STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. TAPAN KUMAR SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two appeals the appellants, the State of West Bengal and the Assistant Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal have challenged the propriety of the judgment of T. K. Basu, J, whereby the learned Judge made absolute the two Rules Nisi - one obtained by Tapan Kumar Sen, the respondent in F.M.A.T. No. 2569 of 1981 and the other by Md. Sahad Ahmed, the respondent in F.M.A.T. No. 2570 of 1981.

(2.) The West Bengal Civil Service (Judicial) Recruitment Rules were framed by the State of West Bengal under Article 234 of the Constitution of India. Rule 2 of the said rules inter alia provides as follows:

(3.) In 1977, fifty per cent of the vacancies in the posts of Munsifs to be filled up by selection from amongst members of the Bar by the High Court was nine. The High Court selected nine candidates including the respondents Tapan Kumar Sen and Md. Sahad Ahmed. Md. Sahad's name appeared in the list of the candidates selected by the High Court at Serial No.1 and that of Tapan Kumar Sen at Serial No8.The Assistant Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal sent a communication to each of the respondents. By the communication, the respondents were requested to fill up the annexed verification role in duplicate and return that on the same day, another communication was made by the Assistant Secretary, Judicial Department to the Director of Health Services, West Bengal inter alia stating therein that necessary steps might be taken at an early date for the medical examination of the candidates noted in that communication. In that communication, the name of the respondent Md. Sahad Ahmed appeared at Serial No. 1 and that of the respondent Tapan Kumar Sen at Serial No.8. Pursuant to the above directions, the respondents were medically examined and found fit. The police verification was also made and nothing was found against the respondents. Thereafter, it appears that no steps were taken by the State Government in appointing the respondents to the posts of Munsifs for which they were selected. The remaining seven candidates selected by the High Court were, however, appointed in due course. The respondents demanded justice from the appellant's through letters written by their respective Advocate. No reply in such demands for justice was given by the appellants. Thereafter, the respondent moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution inter alia praying for writs in the nature of Mandamus commanding the appellants to appoint the respondents to the posts of Munsifs for which they were selected by the High Court.