Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 159 (CAL)

Mohit Kumar Sen v. State of West Bengal

2013-03-18

ANINDITA ROY SARASWATI, NISHITA MHATRE

body2013
JUDGMENT : The Petitioners being dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in OA No.1618 of 1997 have filed the present petition. There were thirty-seven applicants before the Tribunal. However, only ten have filed the present petition. The other applicants have not been made pro forma Respondents by the Petitioners. Therefore, on this ground alone the petition deserves to be dismissed. 2. Mr. Roy for the Petitioners seeks an adjournment to add the other applicants as pro forma Respondents. We are not inclined to grant any adjournment since this is a petition of the year 2008 and it has been pending a decision in this Court for more than four years. We have, therefore, proceeded on the merits of the case. 3. The Petitioners had all applied for employment as Veterinary Field Assistants/Field Assistants under the Animal Resources Development Department pursuant to the employment notice issued by the Department on 13th January, 1995. They appeared for the written examination and the interview. Indisputably they have all been empanelled. The Petitioners contend that in view of the call letter issued to them they ought to have been permitted to undergo pre- service training. The Petitioners further contend that it is only if they are successful in the pre-service training, then they can be considered for appointment as Veterinary Field Assistants/Field Assistants and they would then be a part of the common cadre of Livestock Development Assistants. 4. There is no dispute that the Petitioners were selected and empanelled in 1997. When they learnt that others in the panel had been sent for training, as indicated in the call letter of 13th January, 1995, they preferred OA-1618 of 1997 before the Tribunal. On considering the pleadings before it and the submissions of Counsel the Tribunal has found that seventy- seven candidates from the merit list were offered the pre- service training. This included fifty-five candidates from the unreserved category and seventeen candidates from the Scheduled Castes and five candidates from the Scheduled Tribe. The Tribunal has found that the lowest marks obtained by the unreserved candidate were 56.5 while the marks obtained by the Scheduled Caste candidate were 44.5. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the Respondents that only such candidates, who were found to be meritorious, were called for pre-service training after considering the number of vacancies available for employment. The Tribunal has found that the lowest marks obtained by the unreserved candidate were 56.5 while the marks obtained by the Scheduled Caste candidate were 44.5. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the Respondents that only such candidates, who were found to be meritorious, were called for pre-service training after considering the number of vacancies available for employment. The Tribunal has, therefore, dismissed the application, filed by the Petitioners. 5. Mr. Roy the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that the call letter, which was issued to every Petitioner, indicates that after a candidate is selected, he would be required to undergo training mandatorily. Only on satisfactory completion of such training would the candidate be absorbed in service. According to Mr. Roy, every candidate, who is selected and empanelled must necessarily be permitted to undergo the pre-service training. He submits that there was no need to consider the number of vacancies at that stage. The learned Counsel submits that the words used in the call letter are unambiguous and leave no manner of doubt that every candidate who has been selected and empanelled is entitled to proceed for pre-service training irrespective of whether there were sufficient number of vacancies to be filled by the empanelled candidates. The next limb of argument of Mr. Roy is that different cut off marks were considered for different districts and, therefore, he contends that the recruitment is bad. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Majumder for the State submits that the Petitioners having participated in the selection process cannot now question the same merely because they have failed to be absorbed in service. He points out that on 30th September, 1996 a notice was issued by the Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services indicating that the panel of selected candidates was valid for eighteen months, unless it was extended further by the Government. This notice also indicates that the publication of the names of persons in the panel does not entitle them to pre-service training and subsequent appointment. Mr. Majumder, therefore, submits that the Petitioners cannot claim relief when the panel itself has lapsed. Moreover, he submits that no entitlement is conferred on the Petitioners to undergo pre- service training merely because they have been empanelled. 7. We have perused the call letter which has been annexed to the petition. Mr. Majumder, therefore, submits that the Petitioners cannot claim relief when the panel itself has lapsed. Moreover, he submits that no entitlement is conferred on the Petitioners to undergo pre- service training merely because they have been empanelled. 7. We have perused the call letter which has been annexed to the petition. The candidate, who has been issued the call letter, was requested to appear for the written examination for the post of Veterinary Field Assistants/Field Assistants at the appointed place and was required to carry certain documents for identification. The written examination was to be followed by an interview on the same day or on the next working day. The time of the interview was to be notified at the venue of the written examination. Para 4 of the call letter which is contentious reads as follows: "4. After selection the recruits shall be required to undergo training. On satisfactory completion of such training they may be absorbed without any option from them in the new common cadre of Livestock Dev. Assistant and shall also be transferable anywhere within West Bengal. The form for undertaking attached herewith should be filled up, signed and handed over at the examination centre." 8. We are not concerned with the other paragraphs in this letter for the purposes of a decision in this case. 9. In our opinion, the aforesaid paragraph does not in any manner create a right in the empanelled candidates to undergo pre-service training. It is only those candidates who are selected and who have been found to be worthy of recruitment considering their merit and the vacancies available who are required to undergo training before appointment. The para only means that no candidate cannot be appointed to the post unless he undergoes pre-service training. If he is found to be successful in the pre-service training, he may be issued an appointment letter. The word 'shall' in the first sentence of the aforesaid paragraph, which Mr. Roy harps on, does not, in our opinion, indicate that every person who is empanelled is required to undergo pre-service training. 'Recruits' are expected to complete this training. The word has been used advisedly in contradistinction to "empanelled candidates". Therefore, it is only those persons who would be absorbed in service later based on their merit who would require to undergo training. 10. In our opinion, the interpretation placed on this letter by Mr. 'Recruits' are expected to complete this training. The word has been used advisedly in contradistinction to "empanelled candidates". Therefore, it is only those persons who would be absorbed in service later based on their merit who would require to undergo training. 10. In our opinion, the interpretation placed on this letter by Mr. Roy is untenable. The Tribunal has appreciated the facts correctly and has drawn a proper inference. 11. The next submission of Mr. Roy regarding the lack of uniformity of the cut off marks in every district is also unsustainable. Firstly, there are no pleadings at all in the application before the Tribunal regarding this aspect. Secondly, it appears that submissions were made before the Tribunal that the cut off marks in every district were different and, therefore, the Tribunal had call for the records. After considering the records the Tribunal has held that the Petitioners were not entitled to any relief. Mr. Roy suggests that when the Tribunal has made observations in its interim order it would be sufficient and there need not be any pleadings with regard to the discrepancy of the cut off marks in every district. We are afraid that this submission is untenable. The allegation is serious and must be made specifically in the pleadings before the Tribunal. The State must have an opportunity to rebut the same. Such allegations which are made by the petitioners and which may have been noted by the Tribunal cannot be considered by us when there are no substantive pleadings in support of this allegation. There is not even a whisper about this allegation in the petition before us. 12. Moreover, the relief claimed by the Petitioners cannot be granted as the panel itself has lapsed after eighteen (18) months. There is no material on record to indicate that the panel has been extended upto today i.e., for almost sixteen (16) years. 13. In these circumstances, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.