TRIDIB BHATTACHARJEE Vs. RANJIT ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Short question involved in this appeal is whether the learned single Judge was right in directing the Director, Local Bodies, State of West Bengal to make an inquiry to find out whether the appointments given by the Municipality were in terms of the regular recruitment process as well as to cancel the appointments which were to be found, given in violation of the recruitment rules.

(2.) Rampurhat Municipality was having casual workers prior to July, 1998. The State Government by virtue of notification dated 28th July, 1998 appearing at page 15 of the paper book approved creation of 19 posts and permitted the municipality to fill up those posts by way of absorption of casual workers engaged prior to 31st December, 1991 in accordance with the provision of section 54 of the West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). By virtue of another memo dated 10th May, 1999 the State Government further approved creation of another 19 posts and permitted the municipality to fill up the said posts by absorption of casual workers engaged prior to 31st December, 1991. Apart from the said created posts there had been regular vacancies by dint of retirement and/or death. The municipality by a resolution dated 21st January, 2000 gave appointments to 60 group 'D' employees as would appear from the copy of the resolution appearing at pages 111 to 118 of the supplementary paper book. The writ petitioner being respondent No. 1 being a councillor of the municipality challenged such appointment alleging that those appointments were not made following the provisions of sections 53 and 54 of the said Act, 1993.

(3.) Some of the appointees applied before the Court below and got themselves added who are respondent Nos. 8 to 28 in the present appeal. Learned judge by the order impugned directed the Director, Local Bodies, State Government to investigate into the matter by giving opportunity of hearing to the affected parties and if upon investigation it is found that the appointments were made illegally violating the guidelines and procedure established by law, he would be entitled to cancel such appointments by passing a reasoned order. The order of the learned judge dated July 5, 2000 had been impugned in the appeal by 23 affected appointees who were not parties to the said writ proceeding.