EAST OF WEST BENGAL Vs. DILIP KUMAR NANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has a chequered history. In 1986, the State Government decided to fill up the posts of Gram Shevak within the State. A common recruitment process was had. The candidates sat for the examination. Merit list was prepared. However, districtwise panels were prepared by the Government out of one recruitment process. This was challenged before this Court in 1989. The learned Single Judge set aside the districtwise panels and directed a central panel to be prepared therefor. At that time there had been 700 odd posts were vacant. The State Government accepted the judgment and prepared a central panel. However, series of writ petitions thereafter were filed by empanelled candidates alleging discrimination. The matter came up before this Court again. The learned Single Judge in writ petition being No. CR 12463(W) of 93 once again directed the State to give appointment from the central panel. The said judgment was delivered on August 13, 1998 and by this time the post of Gram Shevak was abolished. The State was directed to consider the said panel for appointment in the post of Gram Panchayat Secretaries. The discrimination continued. The State Government gave appointments to various candidates from the said panel ignoring their merit. Subsequent writ petition was filed being W.P. 18620(W) of 01 when the learned Single Judge directed the Secretary, Panchayat Department to submit a report. Accordingly, a report was submitted by the Panchayat Secretary appearing at pages 64-68 of the Paper Book. After setting up the chronological events, the Secretary contended in the said report that the State Government felt it difficult to adhere to the said panel, which was prepared out of a selection process had in the year 1986, as by this time, most of the empanelled candidates reached their advance age and it would be difficult for them to accept such new appointment. Some of the candidates by this time crossed even 60 years being the age of superannuation. The Government placed the matter for legal opinion before the learned Legal Remembrancer, who gave his opinion of February 4, 2003. The opinion of the Legal Remembrancer was placed before the Hon'ble Minister-in-Charge, who directed the concerned department to ignore the candidates who crossed 50 years as on lst January, 2003. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the said writ petition observed that there was no scope for the State Government to fix such particular cut off date. Once the Court in earlier writ petitions directed appointments to be given from the central panel, all successful candidates from the said panel, must be given appointments in accordance with their merits ignoring their present age. His Lordship allowed the writ petition directing the State to give appointments to the petitioners as they were superseded in the matter of appointment because of their advance age.

(2.) Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with, the judgment and order of His Lordship in W.P. No. 18620(W) of 01 delivered on September 15, 2001, the State preferred the instant appeal.

(3.) Mr. Soumitra Dasgupta, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has contended before us that no fruitful purpose would be served by giving new appointments to the candidates who would be reaching the age of superannuation of 60 years shortly. It would unnecessarily burden the State as there would be financial implication involved therefor.