ORDER 1. This application has been made by 37 persons whose grievances are that their services were terminated and or discharged illegally. The case of the petitioners is that they were registered card holders of Katwa Employment Exchange. The Employment Officer, Katwa forwarded the names of 62 person including 36 petitioners excepting the petitioner No. 10 to the Commandant, State Armed Police. First Battalion, Barrackpore in pursuance of the requisition made for recruitment of Constables in the State Armed Police. The said names were forwarded by the Employment Officer, Katwa under cover of letter no 10D/18/85/8212, dated 26th April, 1985. Another list containing the names of 7 persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribes was also forwarded by the Employment Officer, Katwa under cover of his letter No 10D/19/85, dated 25th April. 1985 in pursuance of the requisition made by the Commandant, State Armed Police, First Battalion in the said list the name of the petitioner No. 10 was included. The petitioners were directed to appear before the Selection Board, Commandant Officer, 1st Battalion on 7th May, 1985 and 10th May, 1985 for physical measurement and selection respectively. The petitioners appeared before the Selection Board Mr. S. Laskar IPS, Commandant Officer, State Armed Police was the Chairman of the Selection Board 25 cases were referred to the Director General of Police, West Bengal for relaxation of requirement of measurement etc and the Director General of Police, West Bengal relaxed the requirements. Thereafter the cases were referred to the appropriate authority for police verification and medical test. 2. On diverse dates between 26th August, 1985 and 16th September, 1985 appointment letters were issued to the petitioners. The said letters of appointment were issued after completion of the police verification, medical test and other formalities. The petitioners thereafter reported to the State Armed Police for joining their duties but they were not allowed to join on 16th September, 1985 as the formal order of Director General of Police was not received till then. Subsequently the direction was issued to the petitioners for joining their duties and the petitioners joined on 20th September, 1985. Out of the aforesaid 37 candidates 12 persons were deputed to the Police Training College, West Bengal and the remaining 25 persons were sent for training to the State Armed Police, First Battalion. 3. Subsequently the direction was issued to the petitioners for joining their duties and the petitioners joined on 20th September, 1985. Out of the aforesaid 37 candidates 12 persons were deputed to the Police Training College, West Bengal and the remaining 25 persons were sent for training to the State Armed Police, First Battalion. 3. After their joining the petitioners received their salary and other admissible allowances as well as the puja advance 4. Thereafter in December, 1985 each of the petitioners was served with a notice either from Commandant, State Armed Police or from the Dy. Inspector General of Police intimating that the names of the petitioners were not forwarded by the Employment Exchange Officer, Katwa for recruitment as a Constable in violation of the Government Order No 819/SCCI/Labour/85, dated 5/7th April, 1985 and accordingly they are liable to be discharged from the rank of temporary Constable. The petitioners were discharged with effect from 1st January, 1986 under R 34(B) of the West Bengal Service Rule Part I in terms of the instructions of the Assistant Inspector General of Police contained in Memo No. 4145(2), dated 22nd November, 1985. 5. The petitioners thereafter went to the Labour Commissioner and wanted to know as to whether the Government Older referred to above had any relevance in the matter or not. It is alleged that the Labour Commissioner did not take any step for redressing the grievances of the petitioners. 6. In this application under Art.226, the petitioners have challenged the said arbitrary termination of the services of the petitioners. 7. Upon the said application the Rule Nisi was issued on 19th March, 1986. As no one appeared the interim order of injunction was passed restraining the respondent from giving any effect or further effect to the impugned order of discharge of the petitioners. 8. Since the respondent did not comply with the said order an application for contempt has also been filed on 26th June, 1986. 9. On 27th June, 1986 an application was filed by the respondents for vacating the said interim order passed on 19th March, 1986, affirmed by the Commandant, State Armed Police, Barraokpore. 10. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on 18th July, 1986 by the respondents. 9. On 27th June, 1986 an application was filed by the respondents for vacating the said interim order passed on 19th March, 1986, affirmed by the Commandant, State Armed Police, Barraokpore. 10. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on 18th July, 1986 by the respondents. It has been stated by the Commandant of the State Armed Police, First Battalion as follows : "With regard to the statements made in paras 13 to 25 of the said application this deponent does not admit of the correctness thereof save what appears from the relevant records. This deponent stales that while the writ petitioners were undergoing training, it was revealed from a letter dated 5/7th September, 1985 received from the Secretary, Labour Department, that certain irregularities were made in the selection of constables from lists sponsored from Katwa Employment Exchange. Then it was checked whether the aforesaid two memos issued by the Katwa Employment Exchange were genuine or not that on enquiry those were found to be fictitious and not genuine. That on an enquiry made by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Katwa, it was found that no list of candidates for recruitment as constables in State Armed Police, First Battalion was officially forwarded from Katwa Employment Exchange to the said Commandant and that fake list were supplied on the said two dates, i.e. 25.4.85 and 26.4.85 by one Pijush Ghosh, Ex employment Officer, who himself was under suspension from 16.4.85. That it was further revealed that the writ petitioner had somehow managed to get the said lists forwarded by the said officer under suspension and got their employment on the basis of the said fake lists in a fraudulent manner" "Therefore upon careful scrutiny of the relevant documents, the Director General of Police, West Bengal arrived at a conclusion that as the writ petitioners had secured their employment on the basis of false and fictitious documents and exercised fraud on the respondents they be discharged from the posts of said temporarily recruit constables. That at the time of consideration the said letter dated 5/7th September, 1985 of Secretary, Labour Department, West Bengal and the enquiry report of the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Katwa at 18.10.85 and upon due consideration of the materials in the record the orders were issued on 22.11.85. “That in furtherance of the said decision taken by the Director General of Police, under West Bengal Police Directorate Memo No 4145(2)/Org. “That in furtherance of the said decision taken by the Director General of Police, under West Bengal Police Directorate Memo No 4145(2)/Org. Org 360 35 dated 22nd November, 1985 the Deputy Inspector General of Police Training, West Bengal, Barrackpore, and the Commandant, State Armed Police. First Battalion, Barrackpore, issued discharge letters in favour of the writ petitioners discharging their services as temporary recruit Constables. That after discharge in the month of January, 1986 the writ petitioners were not allowed to undergo any further training and were released from service. 11. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondents on 21st July, 1986. It has been inter alia stated in the said affidavit as follows : "A memo was forwarded to the Director General of Police, West Bengal, from the Government of West Bengal, Home (Police) Department being memo No. 7832 dated 9th October, 1985 under the signature of Mr. A. Dasgupta, Deputy Secretary. The said memo enclosed the D.O. Under this memo the Director General of Police was asked to keep the process of recruitment of constables in abeyance pending clearance from the Labour Department.” "On receipt of the aforesaid memo dated 9th October, 1985, Shri Suman Sanyal, Assistant Inspector General of Police (Administration), Police Directorate, West Bengal sent a message being Org No. 4026, dated 15.10.85 to the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Katwa on 15th October, 1985 to make an enquiry and send report by 18th October, 1985” "That the Sub-Divisional Officer, Katwa by his memo No. 3353 dated 18th October, 1985 reported that the names of the persons purported to have been sent by Katwa Employment Exchange Officer to Commandant, State Armed Police, First Battalion, Barrackpore were not at all in the register of that Employment Exchange Office and further that those names were sent by Shri Pijush Ghosh at a time when he was already under suspension” “The said report was sent to Deputy Inspector General of Police (Hqrs) through Superintendent of Police, Burdwan." "Under Memo No. 3654 dated 19th November, 1985 the Commandant, State Armed Police, First Battalion, Barrackpore sent to Shri Suman Sanyal, Assistant Inspector General of Police (Administration) a list of the trainees who were purported to be sponsored by Katwa Employment Exchange Officer” "Thereafter on 27th November, 1985. Assistant Inspector General of Police (Administration) Shri Suman Sanyal wrote to Deputy Inspector General of Police (Training) and Commandant, State Armed Police First Battalion under memo No. 4145(2) that the names of the 39 candidates undergoing training not having been duly forwarded by Employment Exchange, Katwa, it had been decided to discharge those persons and further that such discharge should be confirmed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Training). "It may be noted that the rank of Assistant Inspector General of Police is equivalent to the rank of Superintendent of Police of a District/Commandant of State Armed Police of a Battalion, the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Administration) of Police Directorate at Writers Buildings. Calcutta looks after the matter concerning appointment, training, transfer etc of constables and other officers up to the rank of Sub-Inspector in West Bengal Police." Under D.O. No 2131, dated 31st December, 1985 the Commandant, State Armed Police, First Battalion communicated that as approved by Deputy Inspector General of Police (Training), 27 Recruit Constables mentioned in that D.O. were discharged from service w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Training) discharged with effect from that date i.e. 1.1.86 twelve (12) other Recruit Constables vide his College Order No. 1, dated 1.1.1986 Under Memo No. 2 dated 4th February, 1986 the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Training) informed Special Inspector General of Police (Hqfs) that the aforesaid 39 Recruit Constables had been discharged with effect from 1.1.86. 12. At the hearing Mr. Arun Prakash Chatterjee learned Standing Counsel has contended that the interim order was obtained in this case on suppression of the material facts the case referred to has no application to the facts of the case. An application was made by 14 persons who were recruited as Constables and were undergoing training but were discharged on the ground that they were not having required physical measurement the said writ application was dismissed in limine and the Court of Appeal directed the respondents to allow the said writ petitioners to continue their training without prejudice to the rights and contention of either party. It is submitted that it is not a case of non-compliance with any particular rule as regards the physical fitness but it is the question of manipulation of documents. It has also been submitted that appropriate action has been taken against the Employment Officer who sent the names of the petitioner. It is submitted that it is not a case of non-compliance with any particular rule as regards the physical fitness but it is the question of manipulation of documents. It has also been submitted that appropriate action has been taken against the Employment Officer who sent the names of the petitioner. It is also contended that the names of the petitioners could not have been forwarded unless the petitioners duly registered themselves in the Employment Exchange. 13. Mr. Arun Prokash Chatterjee, the learned Standing Counsel, has further submitted that the petitioners obtained their service by manipulating the documents. They were not registered in the Employment Exchange and in connivance, collusion and conspiracy with the Employment Officer, the call letters were obtained and, their names were forwarded to the State Armed Police, First Battalion for their interview and selection. In this connection, he has also referred to a report of the Special Inspector General of Police, Enforcement Branch dated 6th August, 1986 He, therefore, submits that the petitioners were not entitled to remain in service and their services have been duly terminated. 14. It is contended by Mr. Sarkar Das Banerjee, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners are in no way involved in alleged manipulation. They obtained the registration cards from the Employment Exchange and pursuant to the interview they were selected and they also joined the services and there was no question of terminating their services atleast without giving any opportunity of hearing. If it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner were guilty of misconduct in obtaining the job the respondents should have given them reasonable opportunity of hearing before the extreme step of termination of their services was taken. 15. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned Advocates. It cannot be disputed that the petitioners were selected upon interview. They were physically found fit and all of them were allowed to join. 15. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned Advocates. It cannot be disputed that the petitioners were selected upon interview. They were physically found fit and all of them were allowed to join. The report which has been relied by the learned Standing Counsel records as follows : “The enquiry revealed that Shri Pijus Kanti Ghose, the then Employment Officer, D.E.E Katwa received himself the letters issued from the office of the C.O. 1st SAP Barrackpore requesting to send names of suitable candidates for recruitment for the posts of constables in the 1st SAP, Shri Ghose sent two lists containing the names of 7 and 62 candidates, of which 2 names only were entered in the records of registration, without dispatching the same in the dispatch register of his office and quoting fictitious dispatch numbers. He also issued call letters to candidates whose names were not registered with Katwa Employment Exchange, without dispatching the letters in the dispatch register of the office of the Katwa Employment Exchange. He also got identity cards printed putting his name and issued to different candidates whose names were not actually registered Shri Pijush Kanti Ghose Employment Officer Katwa Employment Exchange sent the fake list to C.O. 1st SAP after getting requisition from him to lend list of suitable candidates, in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy with the candidates assisted by some of his colleagues after getting the fake list and call letters typed and using forged Employment Exchange Identity cards and as such committed an offence Under ss. 429/420/468/471/120B, I.P.C. A competent officer of Employment Directorate lodged a complaint at Katwa P.S. against Shri Pijush Kanti Ghose and others. Lapses on the part of the officers of C.O. 1st SAP. Barrackpore cannot be ruled out. The vacancies were notified to Katwa Employment Exchange only and not to any other Exchange R.O. of the 1st SAP and other Officers were veteran officers and they recruited constables on earlier occasions on the lists sent by Barrackpore Exchange and other Exchanges and they were well acquainted with the identity cards issued to candidates by the Employment Exchanges they should have detected the fake Identity cards produced before them by the candidates during interview in the instant case.” 16. This report nowhere implicated the petitioners. This report nowhere implicated the petitioners. The lapses, if any, were on the part of the Employment Officer or the officer of the State Armed Police, First Battalion. A similar case came for consideration before Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee, J in the case of Kartick Chandra Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1986) 2 Cal H N 378. In that case, the letter of appointment were not issued to the writ petitioners who were called for interview by the Recruitment Board and were finally selected, on the ground that there were some irregularities in the matter of forwarding the names of the petitioners by the Employment Exchange concerned. There, Mr. Justice Banerjee held that there has been no iota of allegation or evidence that there was any attempt on the part of the petitioner to cheat or to do any illegal act in obtaining the employment. So also the cafe here, as I have already indicated that in the enquiry report it has not been stated that the petitioners were instrument in obtaining the alleged fake cards from the Employment Officer. The fact remains that the petitioners were called for interview and not only they were selected but they were allowed to join in the case, before Mr. Justice Banerjee, the appointment letters were unreasonably withheld. The petitioners to this case are in a better position. Not only they were selected, they joined and continued for sometime before their services were terminated. 17. There is another aspect of the matter. It cannot be a condition precedent that for obtaining employment one has to go through the Employment Exchange. It may be a procedural matter but that will not vitiate the selection if the candidate are otherwise eligible and qualified. Simply because the Employment Exchange did not sponsor their names or the proper Employment Exchange did not send the names, that cannot be a ground either refusing to give employment or terminating the services. Mr. Justice Banerjee held, in my view, rightly that in a public employment, a candidate shall be considered if he is eligible for such consideration. It is immaterial whether the name of such candidate has been sponsored by the Employment Exchange or not Mr. Mr. Justice Banerjee held, in my view, rightly that in a public employment, a candidate shall be considered if he is eligible for such consideration. It is immaterial whether the name of such candidate has been sponsored by the Employment Exchange or not Mr. Justice Banerjee after referring to the several decisions held as follows: "Inasmuch as the only thing in such public employment is that a candidate whose case shall be considered must be eligible for such consideration and if the recruiting authority is satisfied on examination or otherwise that a candidate is fit for such appointment, such candidate should be appointed by such authorities, whether the name or such candidate has been sponsored by the Employment Exchange or not. Reference was also made to the decision of the Mysore High Court case in the case of Narshima Murthy (M.C.) v. Director of Collegiate Education, reported in (1967) 2 Lab LJ 606 wherein the provision of s. 4 of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory) Notification of Vacancies) Act, was considered and wherein. It was provided that "the employer in the every establishment in public sector in that State or area shall, before filling up any vacancy in any employment in that establishment, notify that vacancies to such employment exchange as may be prescribed". It was held in the case of Narashima Murthuy (M.C.) v. Director of Collegiate Education reported in (1967) 2 Lab LJ 606 (Mys) that there was no obligation on the part of the employer to recruit persons through the employment exchange. Reference was made to another judgment of the Allahabad High Court which had followed the view of the Mysore High Court in the case of Sambhu Nath Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (1975) 2 Serv LR 636 (: 1975 Lab IC 1031) (All). I respectfully agree with the views expressed in the above Mysore and Allahabad High Court cases and also hold that the provision, if any, in this behalf is merely directory and not mandatory and as such whether or not the names of the petition as were sponsored by the Employment Exchange is not at all relevant factor for withholding such appointment after being selected by the Selection Board. Before I part with this matter, I must place it on record that in these hard days of unemployment, the attitude taken by the respondents in this behalf cannot be supported from any point of view. The qualified and duly selected candidates should not have been debarred from appointment on some technical pleas and/or flaws and this does not foster the hopes of the founding fathers of our Constitution to secure all citizens social and economic justice. In the preamble of our Constitution, it is provided that "We the people of India inter alia resolve to secure to all its citizens justice, social, economic and political" and the Supreme Court of India in the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, reported in AIR 1973 SC 1461 held that the objective specified in the Constitution is the basic structure of the Constitution. Further in this case, if on this ground alone, the petitioners who re educated unemployed youth seeking the service for their livelihood, would be denied of their right guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution and further they would also be denied social justice if they are compelled to die out of starvation on this technical pleas and formalities." 18. In my view, this case is fully governed by the aforesaid decision of Mr. Justice Banerjee. 19. It is true that the Employment Exchange should sponsor the names of the candidates when reference is made to them, but that is a matter of procedure to ensure that the names which are there are considered for employment. In these days of acute unemployment, the Employment Exchange does not and cannot give the names of all suitable candidates. There should be public advertisement for appointment so that the field of consideration is enlarged and no one can have any grievance. In the public employment, one cannot only ask for the names from the local Employment Exchange. If the Government so desires, preference may be given to the local candidates for providing employment to the local unemployed youth but whether these candidates come from Employment Exchange or otherwise could not be a relevant consideration. In determining the eligibility or suitability of the person. If the Government so desires, preference may be given to the local candidates for providing employment to the local unemployed youth but whether these candidates come from Employment Exchange or otherwise could not be a relevant consideration. In determining the eligibility or suitability of the person. In my view, therefore, even there was any irregularity in sending the names of the petitioners, once they were selected and got appointment, their services could not be terminated, unless there was misconduct in the performance of their duties. If there was any alleged misconduct before the jobs were obtained, it is difficult how such misconduct could be a misconduct in course of performance of duties. It is not necessary for me to pursue the matter further. 20. Before I conclude, another aspect of the matter has to be considered in this case. All the petitioners were temporarily appointed. Although there was no charge against them but form the tenor of the affidavits and the argument it appears that the petitioners obtained their names irregularly which, according to the respondents, made them unfit for continuance in the public employment. In other words, they want to attach stigma to the petitioners. Reference may be made in this connection to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1986 SC 1626 (: 1986 Lab IC 1086). In that case, services of the ad hoc employees were terminated. It was urged before the Supreme Court that the orders of termination have been made in accordance with the terms of the ad hoc appointment of the petitioners which provided that their services can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason and as such the impugned order could not be assailed on the ground of attaching any stigma to the service career of the petitioners. There, the Supreme Court held : "The position is now well settled on a conspectus of the decisions referred to hereinbefore that the mere form of the order is not sufficient to hold that the order of termination was innocuous and the order of termination of the services of a probationer or of an ad hoc appointee is a termination simpliciter in accordance with the terms of the appointment without attaching any stigma to the employee concerned. It is the substance of the order i.e. the attending circumstances as well s the basis of the order that have to be taken into consideration. In other words, when an allegation is made by the employee assailing the order of termination as one based on misconduct, though couched in innocuous terms, it is incumbent on the Court to lift the veil and to see the real circumstances as well as the basis and foundation of the order complained of. In other words, the Court, in such case, will lift the veil and will see whether the order, was made on the ground of misconduct, inefficiency or not. In the instant case we have already referred to as well as quoted the relevant portions of the averments made on behalf of the State respondent in their several affidavits alleging serious misconduct against the petitioners and also the adverse entries in the service records of these petitioners, which were taken into consideration by the Departmental Selection Committee without giving them any opportunity of hearing and without following the procedure provided in Art. 311(2) of the Constitution, while considering the fitness and suitability of the appellants for the purpose of regularizing their services in accordance with the Government Circular made in October, 1980. Thus the impugned orders terminating the services of the appellants on the ground that "the posts are no longer required" are made by way of punishment." 21. The background of this case amply shows that the termination was made on the ground of misconduct as the petitioners are allegedly involved in obtaining fake employment exchange cards. Accordingly even if they are purely ad hoc and purely temporary they are entitled to an opportunity of being heard. It is not a case of the respondents that the petitioners' services were terminated on the ground of inefficiency, but they contended that their services were terminated on the ground of misconduct in procuring the job. Therefore, there should have been a proper enquiry and the petitioners should have got reasonable opportunity of showing cause against their discharge. They have been removed from services without giving them the protection enshrined under Art. 311 of the Constitution. It must therefore be held that the services of the petitioners were illegally and wrongfully terminated. 22. For the reasons aforesaid, this application succeeds. Rule is made absolute. Let appropriate. Let appropriate writ be issued. They have been removed from services without giving them the protection enshrined under Art. 311 of the Constitution. It must therefore be held that the services of the petitioners were illegally and wrongfully terminated. 22. For the reasons aforesaid, this application succeeds. Rule is made absolute. Let appropriate. Let appropriate writ be issued. The orders of termination of the petitioners are set aside. Inasmuch as I hold that the petitioners services have been wrongfully terminated, the petitioners are entitled to all the service benefits including monetary benefits. The services of the petitioners should be deemed to have never been terminated. Let the petitioners be paid all arrears of salaries, wages and allowances within two weeks from the date of communication of the order. They shall be allowed to resume their duties forthwith. 23. Mrs. Smritikana Mukherjee, the learned Advocate, for the respondents prays for stay, the stay is refused. The respondents shall allow the petitioners to resume their duties forthwith. Let a plain copy of the operative part of this judgment be handed over to Learned Advocates of the parties duly countersigned by an officer of this Court upon their undertaking to apply for and obtain certified copy. Rule made absolute.