BINOY MAHATO Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant was registered with the local Employment Exchange in the District of Purulia. The District Judge, Purulia initiated recruitment process in terms of the circular dated October 31, 2002 wherein the District Judge was permitted to appoint Group-D staff on contractual basis following the regular recruitment rule. The appellant would contend, the said guideline dated October 31, 2002 had the approval of the Cabinet Committee appointed for the purpose. The local Employment Exchange recommended his name to the District Judge along with other eligible candidates. The District Judge held a regular recruitment process wherein the appellant became successful in getting the appointment. It was initially for one year. The letter of appointment categorically mentioned, the appointment would be purely temporary and contract basis that would have no claim for regular absorption. The appellant duly joined the post and continued in employment. When he claimed for regularization the Authority informed him that his prayer could not be acceded to as he was not recruited through recruitment process published and circulated in print media. The appellant claimed, a similar problem arose in Presidency Small Causes Court where the Government regularized the service given on contract basis. The appellant also claimed, in the Judgship of Bankura one Aloke Nath Adhya was regularized being similarly circumstanced with the appellant. The District Judge vide letter dated January 22, 2008 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal recommended the case of the appellant along with others. However, the Judicial Secretary did not adhere to the request made by the District Judge.

(2.) The Judicial Secretary asked for clarification. The learned District Judge, Purulia clarified the issue by giving the detailed process of recruitment that was undertaken. In this backdrop, the appellant filed a writ petition that the learned Single Judge dismissed following the decision in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors., 2006 4 SCC 1. The judgment and order dated October 19, 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge became the subject matter of the present appeal. Mr. Asoke De, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended, learned Single Judge erroneously applied the ratio in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka without appreciating the ultimate decision of the Apex Court so observed in paragraph-53 of the said decision. According to him, the circumstances under which the casual appointments were deprecated, would be conspicuously absent in the present case as the present process had been undertaken following strictly the guidelines of the State particularly the Memo dated October 31, 2002. The Employment Exchange recommended the appellant who participated in the regular recruitment process and became successful in getting the appointment.

(3.) Mr. Dey on instruction would submit, the District Judge, Purulia asked him to deposit the Employment Exchange Card so that he could not be considered for any future employment. The appellant thus was deprived of being considered in any regular appointment for which he should not be held responsible. Mr. Dey would further contend, the appellant in the process lost his seniority in the Employment Exchange. He also crossed the age eligibility bar for any public appointment. Hence, the learned Judge should have considered those special features before rejecting the application. He relied on a Single Bench decision of one of us (Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.) in the case of Dhananjoy Sharma Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.,2003 1 CalHN 385 as also the decision in the case of Tapan Kumar Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2005 1 CalHN 351. He also relied upon an unreported decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 15547(w) of 2003 in this regard.