Judgment : The facts in all the aforesaid Writ petitions are almost identical and accordingly they have been taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The petitioners in these cases were selected for empanelment to the post of Staff Officer Instructors in the Civil Defence organisation, West Bengal in the scale of pay of Rs. 380/- - 910/- + usual allowances as are admissible under the Government's Rules and Orders. 3. They have to undergo training at the C.C.D.T.I. for a period of four weeks. It was further stated that they will be given provisional appointments subject to availability of vacancy and will be deputed to undergo a full time CD. Instructors' Course at the N.C.D.C., Nagpur. Failure to pass the training courses will result in cancellation of selection and/or provisional appointment forfeiture. 1 he letters issued by the Director of Civil Defence in that regard have been annexed in the different Writ petitions. On diverse dates beginning from September 15, 1985, the petitioners were directed to report to the office of the Director of Civil Defence, 81/2/2, Ph ears Lane, Calcutta-700 012 and to complete Police Verification Form enclosed with the said letter of selection issued by the Director of Civil Defence. Pursuant to the said letter of empanelment, petitioners called upon the Director of Civil Defence for C.C.D.T.I. training. Each one of them successfully completed the training and qualified for appointment to the post of Staff Officer Instructors in the Civil Defence Organisation, West Bengal. As the petitioners were not given such appointment, even after assurance given by the Director of Civil Defence, the petitioners moved the Writ applications. 4. One Parimal Chakraborty, Assistant Secretary (Home), Civil Defence by his affidavit affirmed on 6th September, 1991 being the affidavit-in-opposition to the Writ petition and also by another affidavit on 24th June, 1992 being supplementary affidavit on behalf of the State Respondent (both the said affidavits are hereinafter referred to as the said affidavits) took the plea that the selection for empanelment does not qualify the petitioners for appointment in the post and appointment would be given provisionally subject to the availability of vacancy. It has also been pointed out that in view of the fact that no panel was prepared for accommodating the petitioners, the petitioners cannot have any claim for appointment. It has also been pointed out that in view of the fact that no panel was prepared for accommodating the petitioners, the petitioners cannot have any claim for appointment. It has been alleged that since the inception of the Civil Defence Training Institute, there are several hundreds of successful trainees. But it is not possible to give appointments to all of them in view of the limited number of vacancies. 5. In paragraph 2 of his supplementary affidavit it is specifically alleged that the selection committee which prepared 2 lists one for tilling up vacancies then in existence and the other for filling up future vacancies and in the letter issued to the candidates who were selected against 136 vacancies it was categorically mentioned that they were selected for appointment. But the petitioners in the instant cases were selected for empanelment. 6. It has also been alleged in the said supplementary affidavit that the then Director of Civil Defence was Shri S. C. Majumdar, IPS since retired. No records were made available to the Home (Civil Defence) Department by Shri Majumdar relating to selection to the appointment etc. of the Staff Officer Instructors. Therefore, in the absence of any record, he was not in a position to furnish information relating to selection, appointment of 136 candidates. 7. It has been alleged by Usha Adhikari one of the petitioners in her affidavit affirmed on December 6, 1991 that the respondents have an obligation to make appointment from the list in which the petitioners have been empanelled. It was also alleged that the respondents had been giving appointment to other incumbents though not empanelled and selected to the exclusion of the petitioners. There are also instances in which additional posts have been created by Special Cabinet approval for appointment of candidates selected for appointment and empanelment. 8. My attention bas been drawn to judgment delivered by the Division Bench reported in (1) 1992(2) CLJ 247 , State of West Bengal and others v. Chirantan Sarkar wherein certain office notes have been quoted. Some of such relevant notes are quoted below for the sake of convenience :- "*** *** ** 'It appears that 17 persons out of 25 had gone to the Hon'ble High Court for their appointment in the post of Staff Officer Instructors. The Hon'ble High Court has given different judgment on the said court cases. Some of such relevant notes are quoted below for the sake of convenience :- "*** *** ** 'It appears that 17 persons out of 25 had gone to the Hon'ble High Court for their appointment in the post of Staff Officer Instructors. The Hon'ble High Court has given different judgment on the said court cases. It also appears that Home (C.D.) Deptt. have faced contempt proceedings. In view of the position stated above it will be better if the Home (C.D.) Deptt. obtain opinion of the Ld. L. R. in this matter after submitting a precis of the case to him and return the file back to this Department' . Sd/- A.K. Roy 29.11.89.' "Finance Department's notes at bottom prepage may be seen with reference to those of this Department's at page 1-2/N.S. ante. The reasons for the proposed creating of 25 posts of S.O.I. in the Civil Defence Organisation have been clearly explained in notes at pages 1-2/N.S.ante. It will appear therefrom that there was a proposal for creation of 105 posts of S.O.I.'s on population growth basis. But sanction was accorded to the creation of 80 posts out of 105. It will further appear that 30 candidates who were given letters of selection for appointment to the post of S.O.I. could not be given appointment fur want of vacancies. Out of these candidates 18 have already moved the Calcutta High Court for their appointment as S.O.I. and the judgment of the High Court has gone in their favour. The remaining candidates have sent memorials to the Prime Minister of India. Chief Minister and M.O.S. in Charge of Civil Defence, West Bengal for their appointment as S.O.I. Home Secretary. Dy Secretary, Home (Civil Defence) Department, Director, Civil Defence, West Bengal and District Controller of Civil Defence have been facing contempt proceedings in the different Benches of the High Court. In the circumstances, it has been decided with the approval of M.O.S.-in-Charge of Civil Defence and Chief Minister that 25 more posts of S. O. I. should be created in the Civil Defence Organisation. It is, therefore, not clear from Finance Department's notes on what points we should refer the file to Ld. L. R., West Bengal when the matter has already been approved by M O.S./C M. The Finance Department may be requested to kindly clarify. The file may go to Finance Deptt. after Home Secy. It is, therefore, not clear from Finance Department's notes on what points we should refer the file to Ld. L. R., West Bengal when the matter has already been approved by M O.S./C M. The Finance Department may be requested to kindly clarify. The file may go to Finance Deptt. after Home Secy. has kindly seen." Sd/- Illegible 20.12.89." *** *** *** "C.M.'s and F.M.'s order on page 2 of notes within may be seen with the precis below- 2. In compliance with different orders of the Hon'ble High Court, Home (C.D.) Deptt. leave proposed for creation of 25 posts of staff Officer instructor in the prescribed scale of pay Ld. L. R. has also endorsed the proposal, (vide page 5 of notes within)." 3. It appears that the no. of petitioners is 18 and not 25. We may, therefore, agree to the creation of 18 posts of S.O.I. (only to accommodate the petitioner and not others) subject to the approval of the Cabinet." Sd/- S. K. Chakrabarti 8.4.90 Sd/- S. N. Roy 12.4.90 Sd/- Asim Kumar Dasgupta 29.5.90. Home (Civil Defence) Deptt.- "Finance Deptt's notes at top prepage may be seen with reference to this Deptt's at p. 4/N.S., ante. A proposal for creation of 105 posts of Staff Officer Instructor on population growth basis, was under consideration of this Deptt. in consultation with the Finance Deptt. some time in 1985. A Selection Committee selected candidates for filling up of the vacancies in the posts of S.O.I., then in existence, as well as the 105 posts of S.O.I. proposed to be creation. Subsequently, sanction of 80 posts of S.O.I. out of the proposed 105 posts was accorded to. As a result 25 candidates who were selected for appointment and who underwent training in the C.C.D.T.I. could not be given appointment. Out of these 25 candidates, 18 moved the Calcutta High Court, and judgment of the different benches of the High Court has gone in their favour. In order to accommodate those candidates the Finance Deptt. was moved for creation of 25 posts in the Civil Defence Orgn. But the Fin. Deptt. have agreed to the creation of 18 posts only for those who moved the High Court. There is every possibility of the remaining 7 candidates' moving the High Court when 18 who moved the High Court would be given appointment. was moved for creation of 25 posts in the Civil Defence Orgn. But the Fin. Deptt. have agreed to the creation of 18 posts only for those who moved the High Court. There is every possibility of the remaining 7 candidates' moving the High Court when 18 who moved the High Court would be given appointment. Hence, 25 posts of S.O.I. should be created in the Civil Defence Orgn. for accommodating the 25 candidates. C. M. and M. O. S. in-Charge have already approved the said creation. A draft Cabinet Memo is placed below for approval of N. O.s/inCharge/C.M. for taking the matter to the Cabinet. Sd/- Illegible 20.6.90 "Cabinet- B. Chowdhury 29.6.90. Cabinet Decisions: No. 2406 dated 7.8.90. The Cabinet have approved this Deptt's proposal for creation of 25 posts of S.O.I. for the Civil Defence Organisation, West Bengal. Necessary orders creating eighteen posts of S. O. I. should be issued at once for complying with the Court's order. Order creating the remaining 7 posts should be issued later on. A draft is put up for approval. The cabinet has given approval. Orders may issue after H.S. has kindly seen. Sd/- Illegible 20.8.90. "O. I. No. 5992-5992/I(2) dated 27.890. Notes and orders from page 7/N. S. ante may be seen. Orders creating eighteen posts of S. O. I. as mentioned at 'X' have since been issued." 16. We may now issue offer of appointment "to those in respect of whom no case is pending in the Calcutta High Court." 9. On 11th June, 1992, I passed an order inter alia directing the records relating to 136 vacancies as on 18th March, 1985 to be produced on 18th June, 1992. 10. No record, however, was produced and it was stated before this Court that no record is available and payments have been made to Staff Officer Instructors. As no record was available, I directed the Assistant Secretary to be present. 11. On 25th June, 1992 Shri Manish Gupta, Home Secretary and the Assistant Secretary were directed to be present before this Court since no records were produced inspite of previous directions of this Court. 12. Being personally present before this Court the Home Secretary as well as the Assistant Secretary informed the Court that no record s even in respect of the 136 incumbents who were given appointment in the vacancies as on 18th March, 1985, are available. 12. Being personally present before this Court the Home Secretary as well as the Assistant Secretary informed the Court that no record s even in respect of the 136 incumbents who were given appointment in the vacancies as on 18th March, 1985, are available. The Home Secretary stated that his Department is not even aware as to who those incumbents are. Thereafter the Home Secretary was directed to affirm an affidavit to that effect. On 6th July, 1992, the Home Secretary affirmed his affidavit and in paragraph 3 thereof, he stated that the records relating to the selection and appointment of 136 candidates i.e. Staff Officers Instructors are not available. It was assertained that the appointment letters were issued by Shri S. C. Majumdar, IPS, the then Director of Civil Defence from his office at 81/2/2, Ph ears Lane, Calcutta-700 012 in 1985. But no records relating to the selection and appointments were sent to the Civil Defence Department at Writers' Buildings after Shri Gupta was appointed Director of Civil Defence in 1990. 13. Further direction was passed upon the Home Secretary to submit a list of 136 Staff Officers' Instructors selected for appointment and given appointment together with particulars of their respective dates of joining to the present place of posting, educational qualification and date of birth etc. 14. By his affidavit dated 14th July, 1992 the Home Secretary in paragraph 2 thereof stated that relevant information was collected from the different offices of the different Controllers of various Civil Defence Organisations located at different districts. Having perused the papers made available from the different offices, a list of 136 Staff Officers' Instructors, who were selected for appointment and were given appointment, has been annexed with the said affidavit. It has been alleged by the Home Secretary that records relating to the actual process of selection, interview and recruitment of the said 136 persons selected for appointment have not been available and therefore, it has not been possible to ascertain as to in what manner 136 posts were filled up in the absence of the records relating to the actual process of interview, selection and appointment. 15. It has further been alleged that a Board of Selection was there. All appointment letters at the material time were issued by the then. Director of Civil Defence on the recommendation of the Board of Selection. 15. It has further been alleged that a Board of Selection was there. All appointment letters at the material time were issued by the then. Director of Civil Defence on the recommendation of the Board of Selection. It was submitted in the said affidavit that attempts would continue to be made to fill up the gaps that exist in the present information base. 16. An affidavit was affirmed on 10th August, 1992, by Janardan Bhattacharya, one of the petitioners in C. O. No. 3276(W) of 1990 intenied to be used as affidavit-in-reply. In the said affidavit allegations made by Manish Gupta in the affidavit dated July 14, 1992 were controverted. In paragraph 3(a) of the affidavit-in-reply it has been alleged that number of 136 vacancies must be hypothetical in view of the fact that in the affidavit dated July 6, 1992, the said Home Secretary in paragraph 3 thereof stated that records relating to the selection and appointment of 136 incumbents are not available. 17. It has been alleged in the said affidavit-in-reply that in view of the fact that no record is available with regard to the process of selection, interview and recruitment of the said 136 persons, it cannot be stated that each one of them selected for appointment and not for empanelment. 18. It has further been alleged that each selected candidates for the post had to undergo a C.C.D.T.I. training and therefore, the record must be available with the respondent No.5 where such training took place of the candidates selected either for empanelment or for appointment. 19. Pursuant to the direction issued by me the said S. C. Mazumdar, IPS, the then Director of Civil Defence who appeared in person July 14, 1992, affirmed an affidavit on July 17, 1992. In the said affidavit of S. C Majumdar affirmed on July 17, 1992 it was disclosed that the Deputy Secretary and Joint Director practically ran the show. Even the Commandant, Civil Defence Training Institute took orders from the said Deputy Secretary and not from Shri S. C. Majumdar. On perusal of the said affidavit it appears that the Deputy Secretary and Joint Director, Controller of Civil Defence, Calcutta and Commandant, Civil Defence Training Institute were members of the Selection Committee. They interviewed, tested the candidates and prepared the panel long before Shri Majumdar joined. 20. On perusal of the said affidavit it appears that the Deputy Secretary and Joint Director, Controller of Civil Defence, Calcutta and Commandant, Civil Defence Training Institute were members of the Selection Committee. They interviewed, tested the candidates and prepared the panel long before Shri Majumdar joined. 20. It also appears that the appointments were made subject to passing the training course. The appointees returned to the Commandant, Civil Defence Institute for training. Bulk of the appointees were posted under the control of Civil Defence, Calcutta and the joining reports in the Districts were sent to the Deputy Secretary. Therefore, he concludes that if there was any mistake in appointment, the Commandant, the Controller of Civil Defence and the Deputy Secretary being the Members of the Selection Committee would have immediately detected it. 21. After the appointments were over, he received orders from the Minister to issue letters to the boys and girls whose names were below in the panel and who could not be given appointment for want of vacancy, informing them of their empanelment and directing them to report to the Commandant. He further submitted that in their letters of empanelment, it was specifically mentioned that these letters did not give them any right to employment but they would be called when future vacancies arise or when some grave emergency takes place subject to their passing the training course. He categorically submitted in the affidavit that "in fact, I wrote with my own hand on the letter of empanelment that these letters did not give any guarantee to employment" He also alleged that he cannot recollect how many empanelment and appointment letters he actually signed since the records of the joining of candidates and of undergoing training were to be preserved in the office of the Deputy Secretary and Joint Director, Civil Defence, west Bengal. 22. The said affidavit of the said Shri S. C. Majumdar to the effect that he wrote with his own hand on the letter of empanelment and that his letter did not give any guarantee to employment, has no factual bearing inasmuch as the letters of empanelment in all the above writ petitions did not contain such writing, although all those letters were issued by the said Majumdar himself. 23. 23. From the facts on record it appears that the Deputy Secretary (Home) and Director of Civil Defence at the appropriate time was Shri D. K. Sanyal, respondent No.4 in the writ petitions. Significantly enough the Deputy Secretary has not come forward to affirm any affidavit although on the dates when the Home Secretary, the Assistant Secretary and the former Director of Civil Defence were present in person, the Deputy Secretary was also present. 24. Shri Parimal Chakraborty, Assistant Secretary, (Home) Civil Defence, though not a party respondent has chosen to affirm the affidavit stating the case of the Government. Such default of the Deputy Secretary (Home) Civil Defence from the case and his abstaintion from making any statement with regard to the allegations in the writ petition or the assertions of S. C. Majumdar in his affidavit clearly speaks of the malafide manner in which the selection, preparation of the panel either for appointment or for empanelment and ultimately appointment to the post were made. 25. The list submitted in Annexure 'A' to the affidavit of the Home Secretary does not show by whom and in what manmer and process they were selected. Neither does it reveal any information as to whether they were selected for appointment or for empanelment. The panel for appointment and/or the panel for empanelment are not before the Court and the State respondents submits that those are not available. 26. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the 136 candidates already appointed cannot be said to have been selected for appointment, nor can it be said they were topping the list of the panel prepared by the Selection Committee upon proper interview or that they have been clandestinely favoured in a malafide and motivated manner. 27. 27. It has also been submitted by the petitioner's that in view of the statements made by the Home Secretary in his affidavit dated July 14, 1992 that the records relating to the actual process of selection, interview and recruitment of the said 136 persons selected for appointment have not been available and further, it appears that a Board of Selection was there and that it has not been possible to ascertain as to in what manner, the 136 posts were filled up in the absence of the records, the bona fides of their appointment in those 136 vacant posts cannot be said to be beyond any doubt. 28. It has further been submitted that a candidate selected for empanelment and thereafter having successfully completed the C.C.D.T.I. training has a legal right to get appointment. This was the principle decided in the case of Chirantan Sarkar in Civil Order No. 8124(W) of 1988 by G. N. Ray, J. as His Lordship then was. The said unreported Judgment dated March, 1989 has been annexed to the Affidavit-in-Reply of Shri Janardan Bhattacharya to the affidavit of the Secretary (Home) dated February 14, 1992. In that case, Chirantan Sarkar was selected for empanelment to the post of Staff Officer Instructor on December 16, 1985 and it was contended in his Memo of empanelment that he had to undergo a training at the C.C.D.T.I. for a period of 4 weeks. He underwent the training which was communicated by the letter dated December 26, 1985. The petitioner should be deemed to have complied with all the requisites for being successfully empanelled for the purpose of getting appointment to the post. In the said judgment it was held as follows :- "The Court, therefore, should proceed on the footing that the petitioner is fit to be empanelled for getting an appointment to the post of Staff Officer Instructor having already completed the whole time Instructors Course Training from the C.C.D.T.I, West Bengal for a period of four weeks. 29. It is more so when all the records relating to filling up of 136 posts, particularly, relating to their selection process, could not be produced in Court, I am, however, not inclined to make any comment with regard to the appointment of those 136 posts, since that has not been specifically challenged in the writ petition. 30. 29. It is more so when all the records relating to filling up of 136 posts, particularly, relating to their selection process, could not be produced in Court, I am, however, not inclined to make any comment with regard to the appointment of those 136 posts, since that has not been specifically challenged in the writ petition. 30. It has, however, been submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that there is a typographical mistake in respect of the fathers name of petitioner No.6 in C. O. No. 8500(W) of 1990 and the learned Advocate prays for leave to correct the same. Such leave is granted. Let the name of the father of the petitioner No.6 in C. O. No. 8500(W) of 1990 be corrected accordingly. 31. In view of the facts on record already noted and also in view of the decisions which have been taken note of hereinbefore, all the writ petitioners in all the Civil Orders should be deemed to have been selected for appointment to the posts of Staff Officer Instructions. The State Government should take steps for appointing them within April 15, 1994. 32. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the State that at the moment no vacancy is available. It has been already noted that in other cases the State Government has created posts. In these cases also the State Government may create posts, if necessary supernumerary posts, as they may be advised and given appointment to the petitioners. 33. The Writ petitions are thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. 34. Application for Addition of party filed on 21.7.92 in connection with C.O. No. 8500(W) of 1990 is allowed and Shri Tirtha Ray be added as petitioner in the Writ petition. The added petitioner Shri Tirtha Ray be also given the benefit of the order passed in connection with the Civil Orders being C.O. 3276(W) of 1990, C. O. 11460(W) of 1989, C. O. 1362(W) of 1991, C. O. 645(W) of 1991, C. O. 3277(W) of 1990, C.O. 17564(W) of 1989, C. O. 13019(W) of 1989 and C. O. 8500(W) of 1990. Let plain copy of the operative part of this order be handed over to the learned Advocate for the parties on their usual undertaking to apply for and obtain certified copy of the same for the purpose of communication and compliance.