Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 378 (CAL)

Insan Hossain v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2013-06-28

SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI

body2013
Judgment :- Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. By this writ petition the petitioner has inter alia prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents nos. 4 and 5 to give effect to and benefit of a certain office order which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P-7 and Annexure P-8 respectively, to give the petitioners an opportunity to appear at the eligibility test to become a regular employee of the respondent company and for other reliefs. The writ petitioner has been working under a Government contractor at Amdanga Sub-station of the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, i.e., the respondent no. 3 herein, from April, 1998. His case is that on January 17, 2011 the authorities had issued an office order, inter alia, to the effect that the contractor’s labourers who had been working continuously at a sub-station were being afforded an opportunity to appear at the eligibility test and became a regular employee of the Company. The petitioner accordingly filed an application in the prescribed format which is annexed to the writ petition as annexure P/9 and has waited for a considerable period, but has not heard anything from the respondents. This has compelled him to move the present writ petition. Ms. Sarkar, the learned Advocate for the respondents Nos. 3 to 7, submits that this order was issued in the year 2011. But since then, no further step has been taken by the respondents pursuant to the said order and the authorities are going to review the said order very shortly. Ms. Sarkar further submits that in order to facilitate the disposal of the petitioner’s application, the petitioner may be directed to file a fresh representation to the respondent no. 5 by giving the reference to the application filed earlier which has been annexed to the writ petition as annexure P/9. In such view of it, I dispose of the writ petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondent no. 5 within a period of two weeks from today by annexing thereto a copy of the earlier application he had filed before the appropriate authority pursuant to the office order dated January 17, 2011. Upon such application being made, the respondent no. 5 shall dispose of the same by giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. 5 within a period of two weeks from today by annexing thereto a copy of the earlier application he had filed before the appropriate authority pursuant to the office order dated January 17, 2011. Upon such application being made, the respondent no. 5 shall dispose of the same by giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of six weeks thereafter. The respondent no. 5 shall thereafter communicate his decision to the petitioner within a week thereafter. It is, however, clarified that this order shall not be considered as an expression of any opinion of the court about the eligibility or the suitability of the petitioner to the post he applied for. Such decision is to be taken by the concerned respondent strictly in accordance with law. Since the writ petition is being disposed of without calling for an affidavit, all allegations contained therein are deemed to have been denied by the respondents. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all requisite formalities.