Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 190 (CAL)

MANAS KARMAKAR v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2005-03-18

ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, S.P.TALUKDAR

body2005
CHAKRABARTI, J. ( 1 ) CASE as made out in the writ petition is that petitioner participated in a selection process for the posts of Warder in Dum Dum correctional Home and being a successful candidate was included in the select list Respondents when were not giving appointment to the petitioner, he made representation and the petitioner was told by letter dated 11th february, 2003 that recruitment process for selection of the candidates for filling up the posts of Warder under the said home was abandoned by the appropriate authority. Petitioner approached the West Bengal Administrative tribunal seeking direction for his appointment by virtue of such selection. The original application so filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the impugned order by the learned Tribunal holding that since selection process was abandoned by the appropriate authorities, petitioner is not entitled to any relief. ( 2 ) MR. Saptangshu Basu, learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that after completion of a selection process, it is true that persons in the select list do not acquire a right of appointment but the authorities cannot withhold appointment or abandon selection process without disclosing any reason whatsoever. In support of such contention, Mr. Basu relied on the judgment in the case of R. S. Mittal v. Union of India reported in 1995 (Supp)2 SCC 230 and contended that in the said judgment, the Apex Court has held there has to be a justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the select panel. ( 3 ) IN such circumstances, we have considered the contentions of the petitioner as argued by Mr. Basu and the argument of Mr. Kargupta, the respondent and we find that admittedly the petitioner's prayer for appointment has been rejected by the learned Tribunal taking note of the fact that authorities have since abandoned the selection itself. We have also considered the taw as decided in the case of R. S. Mittal (supra) relied on behalf of the petitioner. ( 4 ) IN the said judgment in the case of R. S. Mittal (supra) it appears that the same also related to a selection process and the appointment considered therein was for the post of Judicial Member in Income Tax Appellate tribunal. Selection Board for the said post was headed by a sitting Judge of hon'ble Supreme Court. ( 4 ) IN the said judgment in the case of R. S. Mittal (supra) it appears that the same also related to a selection process and the appointment considered therein was for the post of Judicial Member in Income Tax Appellate tribunal. Selection Board for the said post was headed by a sitting Judge of hon'ble Supreme Court. Petitioner in the said proceeding claimed that in spite of his section for the concerned post and in spite of existence of vacancy, appointment has been kept withheld. In such background, the Hon'ble Supreme court considered the aforesaid facts and recorded the following observations :"needless to say that recommendation of the Selection Board headed by a sitting Judge of this Court was gathering dust in the records of the ministry concerned since 25. 1. 1988. We take serious view of the matter and we direct that any recommendation of a selection Board which is headed by a sitting Judge of this Court must be given prompt and immediate attention. Once there is a recommendation by such a Selection Board, nothing should intervene between the recommendation and the consideration by the appointing Committee of Cabinet (ACC ). The Minister/secretary in the administrative department is under a legal obligation and is duty bound to process the recommendation of the Selection Board by giving it a top priority and place the same before the ACC within a reasonable time. "considering the above nature of the Selection Board headed by a Hon'ble sitting Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, above observations were made and in such background it was held that" There has to be a justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the select panel. In the present case there has been a mere inaction on the part of the Government. No reason whatsoever, not to talk of a justifiable reason, was given as to why the appointments were not offered to the candidates expeditiously and in accordance with law. " ( 5 ) THEREFORE, in our opinion, above judgment in the special facts does not help the present petitioner particularly when in the facts of the present case, there is no inaction on the part of the Government and in view of abandonment of selection itself, appointment was not given to the petitioner. " ( 5 ) THEREFORE, in our opinion, above judgment in the special facts does not help the present petitioner particularly when in the facts of the present case, there is no inaction on the part of the Government and in view of abandonment of selection itself, appointment was not given to the petitioner. Therefore, the observations in respect of a selection process which was kept pending by mere inaction and that too in case of a selection by a Selection board headed by a sitting Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has been held to be different situation and therefore, in the present case the observations made in the said judgment do not help the petitioner at all. The said judgment is not an authority holding that employer is required to disclose a reason for abandoning a selection process. ( 6 ) IN above view of the findings though the impugned order does not require any interference but as the selection process itself has been abandoned, the Employment Exchange authority concerned will consider that the petitioner's name was not sent for the said selection and his name be recommended for any selection forthwith. ( 7 ) THE writ petition is disposed of. Talukdar, J.-I agree.