HEM KUMAR BARMAN Vs. STATE OF W.B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are filed challenging the inquiry report dated September 27, 2007 whereby and whereunder, the Ex-Census Certificate issued to the petitioners were found to have been issued mistakenly. The petitioner of each writ petitions claimed to have worked as enumerator in the year 1981 in the Census Department under Gajole Block Development Officer. The said authority issued a certificate and on the basis thereof, each of the petitioners intended to register themselves with the District Employment Exchange, Malda as Ex-Census Worker/Enumerator under Exempted Category. The petitioners were, thereafter, informed that to avail the benefit as Ex-Census Worker/Enumerator, each of the petitioners has to register their respective names in the office of the Director of Employment, Labour Department, Government of West Bengal. Since, no action was taken in spite of the application being made to the competent authority, the petitioner of each writ petitions jointly moved before this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P. No. 3628 (W) of 2001. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction upon the Director of Employment, Labour Department, Government of West Bengal to consider the prayer for registration of the names of the petitioners as Ex-Census Worker in the Exempted Category. Subsequently, the petitioners were registered as Ex-Census Worker in the Exempted Category and identity card to that effect was also issued to each of the petitioners. It appears from the averment made in the writ petition that prior to the registration of the names of each of the petitioner, there was a full-fledged inquiry by the District Magistrate, Malda and ultimately, it was found that each of the petitioners did work in 1981 Census.

(2.) Subsequently, the name of each of the petitioners was sponsored by the Employment Exchange to the Malda District Primary School Council under the Exempted Category as Ex-Census Worker/Enumerator. The petitioner was allowed to submit the bio-data form and was permitted to sit in the written test examination on May 25, 2003. Each of the petitioners was found successful in the said selection process and the name was included in the panel prepared for the Exempted Category.

(3.) The Chairman, District Primary School Council sought for a report from the Block Development Officer, Gajole relating to the status of each of the petitioners as Ex-Census Worker. Neither any report nor any step was taken for appointment of the petitioners by the respective authorities which constrained the petitioners to jointly move the writ petition before this Court being W.P. No. 14005 (w) of 2003. By order dated September 19, 2003, the said writ petition was disposed of directing the Block Development Officer to complete the process of verification within 8 weeks from the date of the communications of this order. Ultimately, the Block Development Officer submitted a report doubting the genuinity of the certificate relied upon by the petitioner. Challenging the said report, the petitioner jointly moved a writ petition being W.P. No. 17950 (w) of 2003 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of with the direction upon a District Magistrate, Malda to inquire into the matter and if it is found that the certificate is genuine, the writ petitioners shall be given an appointment with a retrospective effect i.e. from the date when last empanelled candidate was given appointment. Since the District Magistrate did not initiate an inquiry as directed in the said writ petition, a contempt application was taken out being CPAN No. 1655 of 2005 which came up for disposal on May 18, 2006 and on the basis of the inquiry report submitted by the District Magistrate, Malda, it is recorded that the certificate issued to each of the petitioner was genuine. But the same was issued by the Block Development Officer under the misconception that the petitioner did work as Ex-Census/Enumerator. Assailing the said order, an appeal being F.M.A. No. 854 of 2007 was filed jointly by each of the petitioner of the respective writ petition. While allowing the said appeal, the Division Bench directed the District Magistrate, Malda to make a fresh inquiry after taking into consideration, attendance register and the acquittance role/payment sheet. It was further recorded that such inquiry shall be restricted to these two documents as the District Magistrate, Malda has found the certificate to be genuine. In spite of the aforesaid direction, the inquiry was not contemplated and completed within the period stipulated therein, another contempt application was taken out which was disposed of on August 25, 2010 as in the said contempt proceeding, the report was submitted by the District Magistrate, Malda and a liberty was given to the each of the petitioners to challenge the validity and correctness of the said inquiry report in a validly instituted proceeding. The instant writ petition is the outcome of the aforesaid liberty but this time, each of the writ petitioners have challenged the said inquiry report by filing the aforesaid writ petitions independently.