STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. BIMAL KUMAR MAJUMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of West Bengal has filed this application against the order of the Tribunal dated 3rd Oct., 1997.

(2.) The ten applicants/respondents filed an application before the Tribunal alleging that they are entitled to be appointed as they had come out successful in the written and oral examination. In the medical test they were found fit. Police verification was complete but no appointment letter was issued. Accordingly they moved the Tribunal. The State came forward with the allegation that complaint was made by some person for adopting unfair means at the selection process. The matter was dealt with by the Tribunal in detail. The enquiry report was placed before the Tribunal and from the said Report it appears that the State Government intended to cancel the said selection. The enquiry report further reveals that none of the applicants/respondents was involved and/or was found to adopt any unfair means for such selection and on the contrary it was found by the Tribunal that the persons concerned against whom allegations were made were not selected and they have not secured required marks for selection. Accordingly on the basis of the said Report the Tribunal found that the selection of the applicants/respondents could not be cancelled on the ground that some other persons who had adopted unfair means in collusion with some of the members who were in the selection process. In case it was found that the applicants respondents were in any way involved in adopting such unfair means they could have been penalised. As the Tribunal found that they were not involved in any illegal act the Tribunal directed the State Government to complete the selection process by issuing appointment letters when they were selected and after selection medical tests were held in which they were found fit and police verification was also made. In such circumstances the Tribunal held that the applicants/respondents should be given appointment. In these hard days of unemployment and when the applicants/respondents had come out successful in all stages of selection and not involved in any such unlawful or illegal activity which was indulged in by some of the candidates who ultimately failed to secure position in that event it was upto the State Government to take steps against their own officers and candidates concerned who had indulged in such unfair means and on the contrary it appears that the persons who are innocent sought to be made seapegoat and their hard earned selection was sought to be nullified in a manner which is arbitrary.

(3.) It appears to us in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that the Tribunal was right in passing the order and we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision taken by the Tribunal.