BHARATI NASKAR Vs. CALCUTTA UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner participated in selection process as candidate for appointment to the post of Clerk (LD) in Dhruba Chand Halder College affiliated to Calcutta University. Mr. Basu, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client though had been appointed on 28th June, 1999 as Lady Attendant but had been serving the college from 1st July 1999 officiating as Clerk (LD). He refers to Chapter-XIII in First Statutes of Calcutta University, to Statute 6 (a), (b) and (c). According to him, in case of filling up of vacancies mentioned in sub-Clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Statute 3, efficient and experienced members of lower subordinate staff having requisite qualifications shall get preference over others. Petitioner was appointed as lower subordinate staff getting her pay according to scale of that group. Her designation as attendant cannot exclude her from the group of lower subordinate staff. He seeks preference be given to her in the matter of selection for appointment.

(2.) Ms. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appears on behalf of the College. She refers to Statute 3(b) for different posts that comprise Lower Subordinate Staff. She submits, in the event petitioner's post of lady attendant is to be integrated to that of laboratory attendant then the factors as declared by Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Another v. Union of India & Others reported in (1975) 3 SCC 58, in particular paragraph 9 are to be applied to petitioner. The first factor to determine the integration would be decided against petitioner since the nature and duties of attendant are not the same as laboratory attendant. She next submits, in any event the post of attendant is not comprised in the group of lower subordinate staff. She relies on another decision of Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Narayan Thatte and others v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2009) 9 SCC 92, in particular paragraph 22 which is extracted below:

(3.) In reply Mr. Basu submits, his client has been officiating in the post for which she has applied as candidate for appointment in the selection process and these factors should accordingly be determined. There is no dispute that petitioner was duly appointed in the post of attendant by the college. The college has also utilized her services, in officiating as Clerk (LD) to find her to be painstaking and hardworking as would appear in the certificate dated 17th December, 2016 issued by it.