Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 280 (CAL)

Prativa Nayek (Bhunia) v. State of West Bengal

2014-03-25

PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, SAMPATI CHATTERJEE

body2014
JUDGMENT : 1. It has been alleged on behalf of the appellant/petitioner that the respondent authorities have not yet issued formal letter of appointment in favour of the appellant/petitioner although in respect of other candidate from the same panel, appointment letter has been issued by the authorities. 2. The learned Advocate representing the State respondents, however, submits that appointment letter was not issued in favour of the appellant/petitioner since the selection was not conducted by the members of the Selection Committee in accordance with law. 3. The learned Advocate of the State-respondents further submits that illegalities and/or irregularities have been detected in the selection process. There is, however, no dispute that on the earlier occasion, learned Advocate of the State-respondents in the other matter being F.M.A. 3775 of 2013 with C.A.N. 3003 of 2013 specifically submitted that the candidate concerned viz. the appellant in the said appeal was duly selected by the Selection Committee and no allegation was made in respect of the selection of the candidates by the said Selection Committee. The appellant in the other appeal being F.M.A. 3775 of 2013 and the appellant herein were selected by the same Selection Committee and names of both the appellants were included in the same panel prepared by the same Selection Committee. In respect of the appellant in the other appeal being F.M.A. 3775 of 2013, learned Advocate of the State-respondents categorically submitted before this Court that the said appellant was duly selected by the Selection Committee. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant in the present appeal has not been selected properly by the same Selection Committee. 4. The State Government cannot take different stand in respect of two candidates of the same panel prepared by the same Selection Committee. 5. It is absurd to suggest that in respect of the appellant in the other appeal selection was properly made and the same was not done in respect of the appellant in the present appeal when fact remains that the names of both the appellants were included in the same panel prepared by the same Selection Committee. Furthermore, the appellant in the other appeal has already been appointed to the post in question whereas the appellant herein has been denied appointment which we cannot permit. 6. We do not approve the contradictory stand taken by the State-respondents in the present appeal. Furthermore, the appellant in the other appeal has already been appointed to the post in question whereas the appellant herein has been denied appointment which we cannot permit. 6. We do not approve the contradictory stand taken by the State-respondents in the present appeal. Therefore, following the decision of this Court in F.M.A. 3775 of 2013 with C.A.N. 3003 of 2013 we direct the respondent authorities to take necessary steps for issuing the formal letter of appointment in favour of the appellant/petitioner without any further delay but positively within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, we set aside the impugned judgement and order passed by the Learned Single Judge and dispose of both the application as well as appeal upon treating the said appeal as on days list. 8. In the facts of the present case, there will however, be no order as to costs. Appeal is allowed.