SUJIT KUMAR NASKAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of challenge in all these three writ petitions arise out of Employment Notice no. 1 of 2008 by which applications were invited for appointment to several posts of Group C and Group D staff of the Judgeship of South 24 Parganas.

(2.) In WP No. 20870(W) of 2010 there are 15 petitioners. Their case inter alia is that in the advertisement that was published the number of vacancies for the post Lower Division Clerks was 370, for the post of Process Servers it was 8, for the post of Office Peons 29, for the post of Sweeper 1 and the number of vacancies for the post of Farash was 2. The mode of examination that was prescribed was based on preliminary/ final written examination/ interview, both objective and subjective pattern, in subjects as mentioned therein. For employment to Group D posts selection would be based on interview alone. 8 of the petitioners applied for group C posts and 7 for Group D posts. The petitioners subsequently received their respective admit cards which, however, did not contain signatures of any authorised signatory of the learned District Judge. A written test was held on July 4, 2010. Results were published in the notice board of the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas on September 3, 2010. The petitioners' names did not appear in the list. It mentioned the names of the members of the recruitment committee and it was also mentioned that interview would commence on and from September 28, 2010 for the Group C posts and September 27, 2010 for the Group D posts. It was mentioned that the exact date and time was to be mentioned in the interview letter to be issued by the Institute of Psychometry (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Institute') to be issued on September 23, 2010. The petitioners alleged that the whole process of selection was organised and supervised by the said Institute and not by the office of the learned District Judge or his authorised representative and till the publication of the results of the written examination the petitioners were not aware about the role played by the said Institute in the process of selection. According to them there is no rule authorising the office of the learned District Judge to give out the duty to an outside agency for conducting the examination and the objects of the said Institute also did not permit it to act as an agency for conducting such examination. The petitioners have described this procedure as vitiated by illegality, nepotism and non-transparency. For recruitment to High Court or Government Services the Deputy Registrar (Administration) and such other competent officers used to issue admit cards and hold selection of candidates. This present writ petition has been filed challenging the process of selection for appointment to the Group C and Group D posts.

(3.) On behalf of the respondent no. 3 the then Registrar General, High Court at Calcutta affirmed an affidavit-in-opposition denying the allegations made in the writ petition. The said respondent has questioned the petitioners' locus standi to move this application after participating in the selection process and after being unsuccessful to qualify for the respective posts. The respondents have further contended that the petition is bad for mis-joinder of parties inasmuch as participants for the posts of Group C and Group D have joined hands together to present a single writ petition challenging the selection process. Admittedly the petitioners received the admit cards for participation at the selection process. Computerised admit cards were issued to the eligible candidates. The petitioners cannot attach much importance to the fact that they did not contain signagures of any authorised signatory, particularly when the admit cards authorised the candidates to participate at the selection process and none of the petitioners faced any difficulty in that. The procedural irregularities alleged by the petitioners cannot vitiate the entire selection process. The petitioners after accepting the procedure and taking chance to be selected for recruitment and after being unsuccessful cannot make any allegation about the process of selection. The petitioners have thus made an attempt to go back to the stage already completed without raising any objection. The allegations regarding illegality, nepotism etc. have been categorically denied by the respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 3 has also taken a very specific point that the Governor was pleased to accord administrative approval for recruitment of staff in different categories in the judgeship of South 24 Parganas and the Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court, Caluctta was pleased to accord permission to the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas to continue with the recruitment process already initiated and to make preliminary selection through the said Institute by utilizing the fund of Rs. 24.5 lacs. On the basis of the an agreement work-order was placed in favour of the said Institute for conducting the examination. The District Judge had every access to any document at any stage, if he thought fit. The said Institute filed an undertaking that the preliminary selection of Group C and Group D staff would be conducted on July 4, 2010 and the merit list would be submitted within the last day of July, 2010 in case of Group C staff. For Group D staff it was undertaken that some more time would be required. The selection committee completed the interview on October 1, 2010 and the final merit list was placed before the learned District Judge which was subsequently duly displayed in the notice board.