ATANU CHAKRABORTY Vs. HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra Court Appeal and the cross-objection are directed against the order passed in the learned Single Bench in WP No. 38 of 2018. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant for insurance of writ of mandamus to direct the official respondents to republish the overall results of candidates for recruitment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) by excluding the names of the 4th and 5th respondents from the list of empanelled candidates and all consequent changes in the merit position of the remaining candidates; to direct the official respondents to recall/ rescind/ modify the decision of the Hon'ble Selection Board as contained in the minutes dtd. 9/9/2009 in so far as the same restricts the validity of the panel till the declaration of vacancies for next year; to recall/ rescind/ cancel the notification dtd. 28/10/2009 in so far as it excludes the names of the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and to direct the official respondents to give appointment and posting to the writ petitioner as District Judge (Entry level) in West Bengal Judicial Services in any available vacancy.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as hereunder. Notification was issued on 31/3/2009 by the Registrar General of this Court notifying 131 vacancies in the cadre of District Judge (Entry level) in the West Bengal Judicial Services to be filled up in the year 2009 in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan's. Pursuant to such notification, advertisement was published on 15/4/2009 declaring that 16 vacancies out of the 131 vacancies are to be filled up by way of direct recruitment from the Bar in accordance with Rule 24(1)(a) of the West Bengal Judicial (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2004.

(3.) The said notification/ advertisement stated that a competitive examination will be held in Kolkata in last week of June, 2009 and it shall be a two-stage process comprising the total marks of 600, consisting of written test of 5 papers of 100 each to be answered within 3 hours and the pass marks on each subject will be 40 and in addition to that the candidates must obtain 50 on aggregate in order to be successful in the written test and further 100 marks are reserved for viva voce and personality test and the pass marks for viva voce and personality test will be 40. It was further notified that the selection board shall call such number of successful candidates in the written test for viva voce and personality test as it thinks fit strictly according to the merit list prepared on the basis of aggregate marks obtained by those candidates but such number in no case should exceed twice the number of vacant posts. Further, the notification stated that the High Court reserves the right to relaxing the eligibility criteria and qualifying the marks for each subject or aggregate, if required. The final merit list will be published on the basis of the total marks obtained by the successful candidates in the written test and the viva voce and personality test. The other criteria fixed in the notification may not be of much relevance to decide the present appeal. Several candidates had applied for the said post which included the writ petitioner and the Respondents 4 and 5. Ultimately the writ petitioner was unsuccessful and not selected and the 4th respondent was selected and unfortunately the 5th respondent passed away.