RAM PRASAD ROY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is taken up along with C.O. No. 11750(W) of 1989 and C.O. No.10012 (W) of 1989 and In re: Ratan Pal & Anr., upon perusal of the materials on record it appears that the petitioners are diploma holders in Engineering. They are allegedly doing job as Sub-Assistant Engineers under the Murshidabad Zilla Parishad and during the period of their long work they have gained sufficient experience as alleged. It is claimed that the services of some of these Sub-Assistant Engineers have been placed under different development blocks of the District, and they have had been working under the control of the Zilla Parishad. It is placed on record that the petitioners came to know about appointment of 26 Sub-Assistant Engineers for Murshidabad and they expect that because of their practical experience they will be taken as regular Sub-Assistant Engineers. A written with oral test was held. There was a State Selection Committee notification and there was a District Level Committee. The grievance of writ petitioners is that Sub-Assistant Engineers who are working as case employees under the Murshidabad Zilla Parishad for 4 or 5 years be qualified and experienced ought to have been appointed directly as they were selected originally while being appointed as casual Sub-Assistant Engineers and their academic qualifications, Employment Exchange Registration etc., were considered, and there was no necessity for further test after working for so many years with satisfactory service. Their further grievance is that non-publication of the results of the written test before calling only qualified candidates for oral test makes room for genuine doubt about the bona fides of the selection, and if the petitioners are excluded inspite of positive assurances being given to them by the appropriate authorities to appear in the test only to make their appointments regular, and to avoid the claim for the petitioner for regularisation is an arbitrary action necessitating interference by the Writ Court. Their further claim is that the whole procedure for selection being adopted as motivated and against all principle of natural justice. There is a prayer for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to refrain from making any appointment of Sub-Assistant Engineers excluding the petitioners who are all qualified and experienced candidates and to restrain the respondents from interfering with the work and employment of the petitioners as Sub-Assistant Engineers working as Sub-Assistant Engineers in the District of Murshidabad Zilla Parishad.

(2.) The writ petition is contested by the State respondents by filing affidavit-in-opposition. It is placed on record that the 341 posts of Sub-Assistant Engineers were created by the Government in Development and Planning Department vide Notification No. 1315/DP dated 25.2.87 including 26 posts at the District of Murshidabad and as per the Government Rules framed thereunder sponsored names of the Diploma holders Civil Engineers were collected from the Local Employment Exchange by the District Magistrate, Murshidabad for selection and for filling 26 posts of the district. Recommendations of 238 candidates including the names of the petitioners of the case were received from the Local Employment Exchange and they are called for written and oral tests on different dates for screening by the District Level Committee formed by the Government for the purpose vide Notification dated 24.11.88. 41 candidates out of 238 sponsored candidates were initially selected and empanelled in order of merit by the District Level Committee and the names of such candidates were forwarded to the State Level Interview Board for final selection and preparation of a panel of the successful candidates. The petitioners were, however, not found suitable within the purview of the preliminary selection by the District Level Screening Committee. The appointments are being made as per Recruitment Rules framed vide Notification No. 10644/DP dated 22.12.88 and there is no question of participation as stated in the writ petition. Other allegations of the writ petitioners have been controverted. There is affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the petitioners reiterating the stand taken earlier and it is further disclosed that out of 323 Sub-Assistant Engineers sought to be appointed in West Bengal while a large number of appointees have not joined their respective posts of Sub-Assistant Engineers and consequently those posts in addition to the 15 (fifteen) posts are still lying vacant even now and new candidates are required to be selected in those posts. It is highlighted that in view of the position of the vacancies, it will not be difficult for the State respondents to appoint the petitioners in the said existing vacancies of Sub-Assistant Engineers.

(3.) Mr. Biswanath Bajpayee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has taken this Court to go through the writ petition in the affidavit-in-opposition and the affidavit-in-reply. He has also taken this Court to the principles as covered by the decisions reported in AIR 1989 SC Page 2049 (Bharwan Dass & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.), AIR 1989 SC Page 1367 (Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.) and 94 CWN Page 934 and at page 49 of the same volume (In re: Arabinda Ghosh ).