SANJOY DEY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the order dated 31st March, 2009 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 947 of 1999 this application has been filed. The learned Tribunal dismissed the application justifying the action of the present respondents to introduce the 'system of interview marks of 100 sub-dividing the same under the head "current affairs and general knowledge 50; reading in vernacular test 25 and writing test in vernacular 25, on specifying the pass marks 50% each" in terms of the amendment of recruitment procedure by the Commissioner of Police, as introduced, effective from 4th July, 1994. The question raised before the learned Tribunal below by the present writ petitioner that he was successful in physical measurement test in terms of measurement specifications formula as prescribed in Rule 11 of the Calcutta Police Regulation of 1996 read with Police Regulation of 1968 and also was successful in the written test and interview, but he was not selected whereas the favoured persons were allowed to be appointed. It was further contended that on assailing the said Codification of recruitment procedure dated 4th July, 1994 published in the Calcutta Police Gazette on the ground that the Commissioner of Police had no power to modify the recruitment procedure when Rule framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution of India, namely, the Police Regulation of 1968 was existing. The learned Tribunal below did not answer the said question of power of the Commissioner of Police to introduce a new procedure departing from the procedures laid down in the said Police Regulation. A Division Bench of Calcutta High Court (Coram: A. K. Ganguly, J. ( as His Lordship then was ) and S.P. Talukdar, J.) in the case W.P.S.T. 352 of 1999 considered the said question about power of the Commissioner of Police to issue the modified recruitment procedures introducing the interview marks on General Knowledge, reading in Vernacular and writing in Vernacular as well as other tests prescribed by the said order of the Commissioner of Police dated 4th July, 1994. The Bench held that the Commissioner of Police had no power to do it and there by confirmed the order passed by the learned Tribunal under challenge. However, a contra view is also placed before us where the question of power of the Commissioner of Police not the subject matter of challenge directly. This judgment was .iriivereu in W.P.S.T. 180 of 2007 by a Division Bench of this Court ( Coram: Bhaskar Bhattacharya and Kishore Kumar Prasad, JJ.). In this case, the Division Bench held on relying upon Regulation 11 of Chapter XV of P.R.C. 1968 that the introduction of physical efficiency test was justified as was introduced by the circular issued by the concerned authority having regard to the clause "that strong and healthy young men should be appointed" as is appearing in Regulation 11 aforesaid. There is no doubt that despite existence of the recruitment rule, the selection Committee has the power to introduce the new system for screening out the candidates and/or to find out the best meritorious candidate. But here the question is different about power of the Commissioner of Police to introduce the system, namely, interview marks of 100 by fixing 50% as pass marks therein to select finally a candidate which, as per submission of the learned Advocate for the State respondent was permissible having regard to the modified recruitment procedure introduced by the Commissioner of Policy in terms of the said modification as published in Calcutta Police Gazette dated 4th July, 1994.

(2.) This is an challenge of the selection process as completed in the year 1999. After selection, selected candidates were duly appointed long back and a fresh selection process has already been started in respect of new vacancies and that also has been completed and appointment given, wherein the present petitioner was not at all a candidate.

(3.) Having regard to such state of affairs, now it is a stale claim and no relief could be granted to the petitioner even if we allow the writ application and declare the modified rule of 4th July, 1994 published in the Calcutta Police Gazette as ultra vires, being contrary to the concerned provision of the Act and Art. 309 of the Constitution.