SUNIL CHANDRA CHAUDHURY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and order of Sinha, J. dated July 12, 1960, whereby a rule nisi obtained by the appellant was discharged. This appeal arises out of a number of writ petitions by several Sub-Inspectors of Excise, who after holding officiating posts of Inspectors of Excise for different periods, had been reverted to their substantive rank of Sub-Inspectors. But in the several other appeals being F.M.A. 168 of 1961, F.M.A. 275 of 1960, F.M.A. 397 of 1961, F.M.A. 164 of 1961, F.M.A. 139 of 1962, F.M.A. 197 of 1960 and F.M.A. 219 of 1960, Sinha, J. had made the rule nisi obtained by the Sub-Inspectors of Excise absolute. The State of West Bengal had preferred the said appeals. These appeals have been disposed of by the judgment delivered by my lord the Chief Justice on April 8, 1965. In the writ petition out of which this appeal arises, however, Sinha, J. discharged the rule and the appeal has been preferred by the appellant who was a Sub-Inspector of Excise promoted to hold the officiating post of Inspector of Excise. In the opinion of the trial Court the facts involved in the writ petition out of which this appeal arises were different from the facts in the other writ petitions mentioned above and therefore, while in the other writ petitions mentioned above and therefore, while in the other writ petitions the rules nisi obtained by the Sub-Inspectors were made absolute, in the writ petition out of which this appeal arises it was discharged. The facts leading up to this appeal are as hereunder set out.

(2.) On January 29, 1947, the appellant was appointed a Sub-Inspector of Excise, and he was appointed a Sub-Inspector of Excise, and he was confirmed in that post in August, 1949. In October/November, 1957, the respondent No. 1 forwarded to the Public Service Commission, names of 92 Sup-Inspectors of Excise, including the name of the appellant, for the purposes of preparing a panel of officers in order of preference, fit for promotion to the rank of Inspectors of Excise. Out of these 92 officers, 25 were selected for interview and out of these 25 officers who were interviewed, 10 were selected, including the appellant, as officers fit for promotion to the post of Inspector of Excise. The names of these 10 persons were placed in a panel of officers found fit for - promotion. In the panel thus prepared, the appellant's position was ninth in order of merit and one Salil Behari Dutta was placed tenth in order of merit. This panel was prepared in December, 1957. It appears that the first appointment of the appellant as officiating Inspector was made by Notification No, 728-Ex. Dated August 22, 1958, for the period up to August 22, 1958, for the period up to August 31, 1958. Thereafter this appointment was extended from time to time, firstly, from November 1, 1958, to January 31, 1959, secondly from February 1, 1959 to March 31, 1959, and finally from April 1, 1959 to April 9, 1959. The said Salil Behari Dutta who occupied the tenth position in the panel prepared in December, 1957, was firstly appointed as officiating Inspector till January 31, 1959, and this officiating appointment was later on extended to March 31, 1959.

(3.) By notification No. 267 dated April 7, 1959, the appellant along with nine others were reverted to their substantive post of Sub-Inspectors of Excise. It is alleged by the appellant in his petition, that by the Notification No. 263-Ex. Dated April 7, 1959, ten new Sub-Inspectors of Excise whose names were for the first time included in a revised panel prepared in 1959, and five of whom are junior to the appellant, have been appointed to act as Inspectors of Excise, on the basis of the said revised panel. It is further alleged that the appellant was not granted any interview by the Public Service Commission before revision of the panel in 1959, and no opportunity was given to him to show cause why his name should not be removed from the panel.