JUDGMENT : Ajay Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Petitioners/accused persons are seeking quashing of the proceedings of D.R. Case No. 2812/2022 arising out of Kalyani Police Station Case No. 241/2022 dated 20.05.2022 under Sections 406/420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7/7A/8/11/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 pending before the Court of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia –cum- Learned Special Court (Prevention of Corruption Act) by filing a criminal revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. The factual matrix of the instant case is as under: - 2a. The petitioner no. 1 is the daughter of the petitioner no. 2, who is a Member of the Legislative Assembly from the Bankura Constituency and is leader of a political party. Suddenly, the petitioner no. 1 received a notice under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from one Ashim Mondal, Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing, CID, West Bengal dated 04.07.2022 requiring her to appear on 11.07.2022 though she was completely unaware about the case being Kalyani Police Station Case No. 241/2022 dated 20.05.2022 under Sections 406/420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7/7A/8/11/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2b. Petitioner no. 1 wanted to know the actual facts of the case and applied for certified copy of the FIR before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia, but she could not get certified copy because the concerned department denied to accept the petitioner no. 1’s application for certified copy without any sufficient reasons. She had filed a revisional application before this Hon’ble High Court being CRR 2386 of 2022 and after hearing, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.07.2022 was pleased to pass the following directions, inter alia, as under: “Considering such aspect of the matter, this court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get the certified copy of the FIR. The learned trial judge is directed to supply the certified copy of the FIR upon an application to be filed by the petitioner in the court below and after following all procedure for obtaining certified copy of a document. With the above direction, the instant revision is disposed of. The learned trial judge is directed to supply the certified copy of the FIR upon an application to be filed by the petitioner in the court below and after following all procedure for obtaining certified copy of a document. With the above direction, the instant revision is disposed of. The Investigating Officer is permitted to examine the petitioner on the basis of notice under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after supplying a copy of the FIR to the petitioner and giving her opportunity to go through the same to ascertain as to whether she has any knowledge about the incident or not.” 2c. After getting certified copy, she came to know that she is one of the FIR named accused persons and the petitioner no. 2 is also the FIR named accused person. In spite of being FIR named accused person, petitioners were served illegal notice under Section 160 of the CrPC only to fulfil illegal and mala fide motive of the State police authorities and the complainant therein. It is not permitted under the law that an investigating agency requiring the attendance of an accused person with a view to his/her answering the charge made against him/her under Section 160 of the CrPC. The intention of the section is to provide a facility for obtaining evidence and not for procuring the attendance of the accused persons. 2d. One Sariful Islam, being the complainant, had made an accusation against several accused persons including petitioners herein, inter alia, as under: “On 19.05.2022 through a Bengali Newspaper article, the complainant came to learn that one Moitry Dana (accused no. 4/petitioner no. 1) had landed a job as “Data Entry Operator” in AIIMS Kalyani for a monthly salary of about Rs. 30,000/-. It has been alleged that said Moitry Dana was handed over the job without her even having taken part in the recruitment test which was undertaken by all other eligible candidates who had applied for the same position/job in the said institution. It has also been alleged that said Moitry Dana is the daughter of one Niladri Sekhar Dana (accused no. 1/petitioner no. 2), who is a Member of the BJP and an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly from Bankura Assembly Constituency. It has also been alleged that said Moitry Dana is the daughter of one Niladri Sekhar Dana (accused no. 1/petitioner no. 2), who is a Member of the BJP and an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly from Bankura Assembly Constituency. He had used his power and influence to illegally ensure that his daughter was able to get the said job in AIIMS Kalyani, which is one of premier medical institutions of our country. It was further alleged that Niladri Sekhar Dana was able to secure his daughter’s job with the help of Union Minister of State for Education; Dr. Subhas Sarkar (accused no. 3). As a favour to his friend/colleague (Shri Niladri Sekhar Dana), Dr. Sarkar purportedly had taken undue advantage of his position as Union Minister of State to ensure that Smt. Moitry Dana was given the job. To confirm the veracity of the news, complainant also checked whether other news portals/agencies had reported about the scam. To his surprise, he came across multiple articles which confirmed the aforesaid illegal acts committed by the accused persons. Furthermore, such news portals/agencies disclosed that another MLA, also belonging to the BJP, had used undue means to land his daughter-in-law, a job at AIIMS Kalyani. The said MLA who is believed to have perpetrated the said illegal acts is Shri Bankim Chandra Ghosh (accused no. 2), who represents the Chakdah Assembly Constituency. Thus, he too used his position as a public servant to help his daughter-in-law to secure a job through unscrupulous means and methods. The news articles also stated that one Taniya Bhattacharya, a Youth Leader of BJP and accused Shri Jagannath Sarkar, BJP MP from Ranaghat (accused no. 6) for providing jobs in AIIMS Kalyani in exchange of money by passing the standard procedure followed for such recruitment. These allegations have been claimed to be true by many other members of the BJP including Partha Chatterjee, Dilip Ghosh and others. The entire incident shows that it is concerted effort made by highly placed and influential members of the BJP to provide jobs to their near and dear ones and denying opportunities to deserving candidates. It will not be out of place to mention here that locals, who live in and around Kalyani and/or within Nadia District, have been attempting to secure in and every available job that AIIMS Kalyani has to offer. It will not be out of place to mention here that locals, who live in and around Kalyani and/or within Nadia District, have been attempting to secure in and every available job that AIIMS Kalyani has to offer. They were made to believe that with a premier institute like AIIMS being set up, the locals will have job opportunities and issue of unemployment will be addressed in Nadia District. They have gone pillar to post and some of them have ever taken part in multiple tests/examinations to land a job in the said Central Government institution. However, various news articles have opened their eyes to the fact that they never really stood a chance against such power yielding public servants who were elected by them, to help and protect them and not backstab them snatching away their jobs in favour of their own. These illegal acts assume importance in the light of the recent SSC corruption scam in Bengal, as the BJP leader’s claim of being an honest and law-abiding party falls flat on its face. Such acts have shaken the confidence of the local people in the Central Leadership which is responsible for running various premier institutes. Recruiting candidates based on their backgrounds/connections instead of merit, will also adversely affect the services rendered by these institutes and bring shame to the institutes. In the light of the above, it is amply clear that leader of BJP including public servants like the accused persons are misusing their position/power to make illicit appointments in favour of their own near and dear ones. In order to do so, they have connived and conspired amongst them and taken into confidence the Director of AIIMS Kalyani, namely, Sri Ramji Singh (accused no. 7) to allow the accused nos. 1 and 2’s relatives to be illegally recruited into the institution as employees/retainers/contractual service providers. The role of Sri Ramji Singh is vital in the entire scam, since, without the Director’s knowledge and information such illegal appointments would be practically impossible.” 2e. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, Kalyani Police Station Case No. 241/2022 dated 20.05.2022 under Sections 406/420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7/7A/8/11/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered for causing investigation. 2f. It is the contention of the petitioner no. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, Kalyani Police Station Case No. 241/2022 dated 20.05.2022 under Sections 406/420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7/7A/8/11/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered for causing investigation. 2f. It is the contention of the petitioner no. 1 that on 30.01.2022, she attended an examination conducted by the Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘BECIL’) with regard to a temporary job at the level of Upper Division Clerk/Data Entry Operator. After the said examination, the petitioner no. 1 was given a letter of appointment from the Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Limited dated 10.06.2022, for a short-term contractual job, as a “Data Entry Operator” at the AIIMS, Kalyani, which is purely on contractual basis from 01.04.2022 to 28.08.2022. The letter of appointment indicates following terms and conditions as, inter alia, as under: - “1) The contract is initially for a period from 01.04.2022 to 28.08.2022 or till the duration of the project whichever is earlier. This contract can be further reviewed as per the terms and conditions mutually agreed upon. If the contract is not reviewed on or before expiry of its validity period, it will automatically terminate if the project awarded by AIIMS to BECIL is terminated…. (2) You will be paid a sum of Rs. 24,800/- during your contract employment period…. (3) BECIL will credit the monthly remuneration in your salaried bank account and also deposit the EPF contribution of the employer and employee to the concerned provident fund commission and also deposit the ESI contribution to the ESI department concerned from time to time. 4) …………….. (5) You will not be entitled to any other benefits applicable to regular employees of the Company such as DA, HRA, CCA, Medical, and Incentive Etc. (6) Since the engagement is purely on contractual basis, it does not imply any possibility of absorption in AIIMS or BECIL. You should agree not to put any claim for permanency or continuation of job irrespective of the total duration of your contract in continuation or in parts.” 2g. It is further contention of the petitioners that the nature of job was short term temporary contractual job which, by no stretch of imagination, can be equated with any form of permanency. You should agree not to put any claim for permanency or continuation of job irrespective of the total duration of your contract in continuation or in parts.” 2g. It is further contention of the petitioners that the nature of job was short term temporary contractual job which, by no stretch of imagination, can be equated with any form of permanency. Short term contractual basis job is not equivalent to permanent government job and in such contractual job, sole description of the appointment is with the appointing authority. So, question of use of power and influence illegally to ensure job of the daughter of petitioner no. 2 in AIIMS, Kalyani does not and cannot be accepted. Only to malign, the complainant, in connivance with some political leaders, implicated both the petitioners without any base and sufficient reasons. Hence, the petitioners have approached before this Court with a prayer for quashing of the proceeding. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: 3. Mr. Mazumder along with others, appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that the concept of standard operating procedure in a permanent government job is furnished in Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the institution is controlled by Central Government. Therefore, Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 would apply and her job was given on the basis of the recommendation of higher authority of the Government of India and such recommendation is within the power and under control of the Union of India. The petitioners are innocent and no way connected with an offence far less the offence alleged in the impugned FIR. The allegations levelled in the impugned FIR suffer on antagonistic contradictions and inherent absurdity. The allegations, taken to be true, do not make out any cause of action giving rise to initiation of the investigation under Chapter 12 of the CrPC. The instant proceeding, initiated against the present petitioners, is absolutely baseless, frivolous and displaced a clear misuse of criminal law and failed to disclose any commission of offence by the petitioners. The attempt was made by the State to give a colour of the criminal proceeding which is absolutely a dispute of different nature. As per the Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the concept of the recruitment conditions of service is to ensure that equal opportunity is created. The attempt was made by the State to give a colour of the criminal proceeding which is absolutely a dispute of different nature. As per the Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the concept of the recruitment conditions of service is to ensure that equal opportunity is created. Consequently, two laws have been introduced, namely, Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 which is a central Act and second is the West Bengal Regulation of Recruitment in State Government establishment and establishments of Public Undertakings, Statutory bodies, Government Companies and Local Authorities Act, 1999. When the allegation is with regard to the central controlled institution, the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 would apply. 3a. It is further submitted that it is imperative to analyse certain sections of the said Act. Firstly, section 2(a) (b) (i) which defines appropriate government in relation to any establishment owned, controlled, managed by the central government or a department of the central government. It is also crucial to state that Section 2(b) defined the term employ as any person who is employed in an establishment to do any work for remuneration. However, the most essential features of the said Act are mentioned in section 3 of the said Act which stipulates the circumstances/vacancies in relation to which the said Act would not apply, thereby meaning that the concept of any standard operating procedure or equality as envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 is done away with a situation which is contemplated with under section 3 of the said Act. On a thorough reading of the sections, it would be clear that the present case falls within the “scope of result of any examination conducted or interview held” as well as on a reading of the allegations it would be clear that the instant case would also fall within the ambit of “recommendation of any independent agency such as Union or a State Public Commission or the alike”. In the present case, it is alleged that the petitioner no. 1 was able to secure her job based on the recommendation of Union Minister of State. 3b. In the present case, it is alleged that the petitioner no. 1 was able to secure her job based on the recommendation of Union Minister of State. 3b. It is further argued that a person who is employed on a short-term contractual basis does not fall within the purview of Article 309 of the Constitution of India as has been specified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union Public Service Commission vs. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela and Others, (2006) 2 SCC 482 . 3c. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Short-Term Contractual jobs has completely segregated from such workers who are in permanent job in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Charanjit Singh and Others, (2006) 9 SCC 321 . 3d. Learned counsel further submitted that the Prevention of Corruption Act underwent an amendment in the year 2018 and vide Act 16 of 2018 which came in effect on and from 26th July, 2018, Section 17A was incorporated in the said act. Charanjit Singh and Others, (2006) 9 SCC 321 . 3d. Learned counsel further submitted that the Prevention of Corruption Act underwent an amendment in the year 2018 and vide Act 16 of 2018 which came in effect on and from 26th July, 2018, Section 17A was incorporated in the said act. It clearly states that no police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval— (a) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of that Government; (b) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of that Government; (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed: Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person: Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month. 3e. It is further contended that in the present case, the written complaint resulted in a compilation of FIR on 20.05.2022 (almost 4 years after the introduction of the aforesaid section which was brought about by way of an amendment in 2018). However, the investigating agency without giving any regard to such mandatory bar envisaged under the law, immediately and simultaneously on receipt of the written complaint on 17.20 hrs of the said dated launched an investigation under Sections 7/7A/8/11/13 of the said Act. However, the investigating agency without giving any regard to such mandatory bar envisaged under the law, immediately and simultaneously on receipt of the written complaint on 17.20 hrs of the said dated launched an investigation under Sections 7/7A/8/11/13 of the said Act. In the present case, the investigating agency prior to any steps being taken by them on receipt of the written complaint ought to have obtained the sanction from the Central Government in respect of public servants employed by the Central Government. To support his contention, he places reliance of a judgment passed in Yashwant Singh and Others vs. Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director and Another, (2020) 2 SCC 338 . 3f. Learned counsel further submitted when a candidate had been appointed on contractual basis only for 5 months, the said appointment was made by the Central Government’s recommendation and it was a project based contractual post which was selected by the BECIL and not by AIIMS. As such, the appointment is permissible under the law on the basis of recommendation since it was for a particular time period and there was no provision for extension of the services. The terms and conditions of the appointment is very limited period and purposes. Therefore, question of violation of Article 309 of the Constitution of India does not arise. No extension has been granted to the petitioner no. 1 for further job. Accordingly, the entire proceeding is sheer abuse of process of law and for the end of justice requires immediate interference by this Court under Section 482 of the CrPC. The Hon’ble High Court is not powerless to apply its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash such illegal, fabricated and frivolous proceedings. Learned counsel further placed reliance of following judgments to bolster his submissions as under: (i). R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 ; (ii). State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; (iii). Haji Iqbal alias Bala through S.P.O.A. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 948. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE: 4. Per contra, Mr. Roy, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the AIIMS, Kalyani is controlled by Central Government of India. The remuneration/wages paid to the petitioner no. 1 from the government exchequer as the AIIMS is financially, functionally and administratively controlled by the Central Government. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE: 4. Per contra, Mr. Roy, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the AIIMS, Kalyani is controlled by Central Government of India. The remuneration/wages paid to the petitioner no. 1 from the government exchequer as the AIIMS is financially, functionally and administratively controlled by the Central Government. Therefore, other successful candidates should not be deprived and prejudiced by the appointment of the petitioner no.1. Recruitment process had been conducted by the BECIL. In such recruitment process, petitioner no. 1 could not qualify and it is confirmed by BECIL in his letter. Every recruitment in Central Government or in State Government job either temporary or permanent, appointing authority must follow the recruitment process according to recruitment rules viz. the written test, viva voce and Computer based test etc. She was given appointment only on the basis of recommendation by the authority using power and position of the post and concerted effort made by highly placed and influential members of the Political party to provide jobs to their near and dear ones denying opportunities to deserving candidates as well as superseding the higher ranked eligible candidates, which is totally illegal and violation of principle of natural justice as well as Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, they have been implicated into this case. So, question of quashing does not arise at all. This case was taken over by the CID and caused investigation. As the sanction has not been granted till date in spite of prayer, accused persons have not been prosecuted in connection with offence falls under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Investigating agency is conducting investigation only in connection with the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code after discussion with higher officials as such now sanction is not at all necessary. 4a. It is further submitted that a result was published in Website with regard to 2171 candidates. Out of those, petitioner no. 1 Moitry Dana, applied for general category for the post of Data Entry Operator, obtained 20 marks out of 100 marks and her rank was 2059. Those who had secured more mark in Skill test were subsequently called for other test but they have been denied appointment for the post. Out of those, petitioner no. 1 Moitry Dana, applied for general category for the post of Data Entry Operator, obtained 20 marks out of 100 marks and her rank was 2059. Those who had secured more mark in Skill test were subsequently called for other test but they have been denied appointment for the post. Appointment letter was issued to the Petitioner No. 1 as she is the daughter of influential person i.e. Petitioner No. 2 on the basis of the recommendation by the higher authority of the Government of India, which is totally against the principle of natural justice and the recruitment rules. 4b. Finally, it is submitted that the offence alleged against the present petitioners are cognizable and all ingredients are available against the present petitioners. Accordingly, the application has no merit and liable to be dismissed. DISCUSSIONS, ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION BY THIS COURT: 5. Having heard the rival arguments of the parties and upon careful perusal of record and case diary produced by the State, this Court finds it is admitted facts that the Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Data Entry Operator for the Deputy Director, AIIMS, Kalyani, West Bengal w.e.f. 01.04.2022 for about 5 months. It is further admitted facts that Petitioner No. 1 applied for the post of Upper Division Clerk/Data Entry Operator and attended the Skill Test conducted by BECIL. She could not qualify as she secured 20 marks out of 100 marks and her rank was 2059 out of 2171 candidates. It is further admitted facts that her appointment letter was issued by the BECIL on the basis of recommendation by the Administrative Officer, AIIMS, Kalyani, communicated vide email dated 10.05.2022 and she was allowed to join in AIIMS, Kalyani by the concerned authority of AIIMS, Kalyani on its own w.e.f. 01.04.2022 without intimation to the BECIL. There were 14 recommendations at a time including the present petitioner No. 1 for the posts of different categories. She is the daughter of Petitioner No. 2, the present Member of the Legislative Assembly from the Bankura Constituency. If she would have passed the recruitment process conducted by the BECIL on merit then question of illegal appointment or favouring to near and dear ones does not arise but, in the present case, she was appointed on recommendation despite being unsuccessful candidate is serious allegation and concern. If she would have passed the recruitment process conducted by the BECIL on merit then question of illegal appointment or favouring to near and dear ones does not arise but, in the present case, she was appointed on recommendation despite being unsuccessful candidate is serious allegation and concern. Now, following questions emerge on the basis of facts, allegations and arguments made by the parties as under: 1. Whether the appointment, made on purely contractual basis in the present case, requires to follow recruitment process under the recruitment rules as applicable? 2. Whether the appointment of the present petitioner No. 1 can be said to be appointed in a permanent government service/job? 3. Whether the First Information Report and investigation are being bereft of necessary sanction under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (as amended in 2018) and is liable to be quashed or not? 4. Whether Government authority has discretionary power to recommend the name of candidate i.e. petitioner no. 1 for appointment of Data Entry Operator despite being unqualified in a recruitment process conducting by the outsource agency BECIL after inviting applications for recruitment of several vacancies purely on contract basis for deployment in the office of AIIMS, Kalyani, West Bengal through the BECIL vide advertisement No. BECIL/HR/AIIMS- Kalyani/Advt.2021/97 dated 07.12.2021? 6. With regards to the first question is concerned, the appointment was given to the petitioner no. 1 on purely contractual basis for the period of about 5 months w.e.f. 01.04.2022 to 28.08.2022 as a Data Entry Operator for AIIMS, Kalyani, West Bengal. The said appointment was given on the basis of recommendation by administrative officer, AIIMS, Kalyani although, she could not qualify as she secured 20 marks out of 100 marks and her rank was 2059 out of 2171 candidates for the said post. It is true that the AIIMS, Kalyani is controlled by the Central Government and to fulfil the declared vacancies in the institution, Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 would apply. According to Section 3, the Act is not too applicable in relation to certain vacancies. It is true that the AIIMS, Kalyani is controlled by the Central Government and to fulfil the declared vacancies in the institution, Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 would apply. According to Section 3, the Act is not too applicable in relation to certain vacancies. - (1) This Act shall not apply in relation to vacancies - (a) in any employment in agriculture (including horticulture) in any establishment in private sector other than employment as agricultural or farm machinery operatives; (b) in any employment in domestic service; (c) in any employment the total duration of which is less than three months; (d) in any employment to do unskilled office work; (e) in any employment connected with the staff of Parliament. (2) Unless the Central Government otherwise directs by notification in the Official Gazette in this behalf, this Act shall not also apply in relation to – (a) vacancies which are proposed to be filled through promotion or by absorption of surplus staff of any branch or department of the same establishment or on the result of any examination conducted or interview held by, or on the recommendation of, any independent agency, such as the Union or a State Public Service Commission and the like; (b) Vacancies in an employment which carries a remuneration of less than sixty rupees in a month. On a thorough reading of the aforesaid provisions, it would be clear that the present case falls within the “scope on the result of any examination conducted or interview held”. But here the case of the petitioner no. 1 is on the basis of recommendation of the Administrative Officer, AIIMS, Kalyani, communicated vide email dated 10.05.2022 and the allegation of the complainant is that she secured her job based on recommendation of Union Minister of the State, who belongs to political party and the friend of the petitioner no. 2. Upon such appointment, other candidates who secured more number than the petitioner no. 1 had suffered from getting job even those candidates were deserving. When the AIIMS, Kalyani selected an out-source agency, BECIL for appointment of employees of different categories of post maintaining the recruitment rules by way of examining the candidates viz. written test, skill test, viva voce, interview and computer-based test etc. In which petitioner no. 1 had suffered from getting job even those candidates were deserving. When the AIIMS, Kalyani selected an out-source agency, BECIL for appointment of employees of different categories of post maintaining the recruitment rules by way of examining the candidates viz. written test, skill test, viva voce, interview and computer-based test etc. In which petitioner no. 1 also applied for the post of Upper Division Clerk/Data Entry Operator and also attended the skill test conducted by the BECIL. The result of the skill test was published in the Website. She secured 20 marks out of 100 marks and her rank was 2059 out of 2171 candidates meaning thereby she could not qualify in the said post. In spite of such being position, she was given appointment avoiding or depriving other deserving candidates. The authority had conducted the examination after inviting applications through general Advertisement No. BECIL/HR/AIIMS- Kalyani/Advt.2021/97 dated 07.12.2021. So, question of recommendation by the higher officials of the Government of India to the petitioner no. 1 is not at all permissible. Recommendation to the petitioner no. 1 in the said post implies other candidates have been deprived. It is against the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, in the present case, recruitment process had been conducted by the outsource agency BECIL. As such, recruitment process under the recruitment rules, as applicable, ought to have strictly followed. 7. So far as the second question is concerned, the petitioner no. 1 cannot be said to be appointed in a permanent government service/ Job because she served for the government institution i.e. AIIMS, Kalyani, West Bengal as a purely contractual employee of a period of about 5 months i.e. on and from 01.04.2022 to 28.08.2022. Her appointment was on the basis of recommendation and employment has already come to end. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that short term contractual basis job does not fall within the government service or job and/or comes within the purview of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. He placed reliance of a judgment passed in Union Public Service Commission vs. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela and Others, (2006) 2 SCC 482 . Upon perusal of the said judgment, it appears the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraphs 19 and 20 of the said judgment would amplify the point agitated by the petitioner herein as under: “19. He placed reliance of a judgment passed in Union Public Service Commission vs. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela and Others, (2006) 2 SCC 482 . Upon perusal of the said judgment, it appears the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraphs 19 and 20 of the said judgment would amplify the point agitated by the petitioner herein as under: “19. It, therefore, follows that employment under the Government is a matter of status and not a contract even though the acquisition of such a status may be preceded by a contract, namely, an offer of appointment is accepted by the employee. The rights and obligations are not determined by the contract of the two parties but by statutory rules which are framed by the Government in exercise of power conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution and the service rules can be unilaterally altered by the rule making authority, namely, the Government. 20. There is no dispute that Respondent 1 was engaged or hired on contract to work as Drugs Inspector for a period of six months from the date of joining or till a candidate selected by UPSC joined on regular basis, whichever was earlier. The contract further stipulated that even if a regularly selected candidate did not join, Respondent 1 shall stand relieved on the expiry of six months. In Director, Institute of Management Development v. Pushpa Srivastava [ (1992) 4 SCC 33 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 767: (1992) 21 ATC 377: AIR 1992 SC 2070 ] it was held that where the appointment is purely on ad hoc basis and is contractual and by efflux of time the appointment comes to an end, the person holding such post can have no right to continue in the post. It was further held that this is so even if the person is continued from time to time on ad hoc basis for more than a year. In State of Haryana v. Surinder Kumar [ (1997) 3 SCC 633 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 844] the respondents were appointed as clerks on contract basis. They filed a writ petition in the High Court for their regularisation which was allowed and a direction was issued for payment of wages on the principle of “equal pay for equal work” and also regularisation of their services. They filed a writ petition in the High Court for their regularisation which was allowed and a direction was issued for payment of wages on the principle of “equal pay for equal work” and also regularisation of their services. In appeal this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court holding that as the respondents’ recruitment was not made in accordance with the rules and they were appointed on contract basis on daily wages, they cannot have any right to the post as such until they are duly selected and appointed. This decision was followed by a three-Judge Bench in State of Haryana V. Charanjit Singh [JT (2005) 12 SC 475: (2006) 9 SCC 321 ] and it was held that where a person is employed under a contract, it is the contract which will govern the terms of contract of service and not the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution governing the conditions of service to the post on which he is employed. It is, therefore, clear that Respondent 1 did not have any right to continue as Drugs Inspector after expiry of the six months’ period for which he had been appointed.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Short-Term Contractual jobs has completely segregated such workers from any permanent job in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Charanjit Singh and Others, (2006) 9 SCC 321 . Upon perusal of the said judgment, it appears the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the said judgment held as under: “22. One other fact which must be noted is that Civil Appeals Nos. 6648, 6647, 6572 and 6570 of 2002 do not deal with casual or daily-rated workers. These are cases of persons employed on contract. To such persons the principle of equal pay for equal work has no application. The Full Bench judgment dealt only with daily-rated and casual workers. Where a person is employed under a contract, it is the contract which will govern the terms and conditions of service. In State of Haryana v. Surinder Kumar [ (1997) 3 SCC 633 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 844] persons employed on contract basis claimed equal pay as regular workers on the footing that their posts were interchangeable. It was held that these persons had no right to the regular posts until they are duly selected and appointed. In State of Haryana v. Surinder Kumar [ (1997) 3 SCC 633 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 844] persons employed on contract basis claimed equal pay as regular workers on the footing that their posts were interchangeable. It was held that these persons had no right to the regular posts until they are duly selected and appointed. It was held that they were not entitled to the same pay as regular employees by claiming that they are discharging the same duties. It was held that the very object of selection is to test the eligibility and then to make appointment in accordance with the rules. It was held that the respondents had not been recruited in accordance with the rules prescribed for recruitment. 23. In Union of India v. K.V. Baby [ (1998) 9 SCC 252 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 539] the question was whether commission-bearers/vendors are entitled to the same salary as regular employees. It was held that their appointment and mode of selection, their qualifications cannot be compared with regular employees. It was held that by their very nature of employment they cannot be equated with regular employees. It was held that recruitment rules and service conditions do not apply to such persons. It was held that their responsibilities cannot be equated with those of regular employees.” 8. Considering the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the petitioner no. 1 cannot be said to be appointed in a permanent government service or job as her appointment was purely contractual basis and not as permanent job. 9. In respect of the third question is concerned, this Court finds on the basis of allegations levelled by one Sariful Islam, Kalyani Police Station Case No. 241/2022 dated 20.05.2022 under Sections 406/420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7/7A/8/11/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against several accused persons including the present petitioner nos. 1 and 2. From the case diary, it appears the said Kalyani P.S. case has been taken over by CID, West Bengal and started investigation over the allegations. During investigation, a notice under Section 160 of the CrPC were served upon the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 to appear before Ashim Mondal, Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing, CID, West Bengal for the purpose of answering certain questions pertaining to the case. During investigation, a notice under Section 160 of the CrPC were served upon the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 to appear before Ashim Mondal, Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing, CID, West Bengal for the purpose of answering certain questions pertaining to the case. In those letters, the Inspector of Police referred the case number as Kalyani Police Station Case No. 241/2022 dated 20.05.2022 under Sections 406/420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7/7A/8/11/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and as per the notice issued under Section 160 of the Cr.PC, petitioners have time to time appeared before Ashim Mondal for the purpose of investigation and answered questions pertaining to the case. However, the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that the investigating officer is not investigated the case under Sections 7/7A/8/11/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as such sanction is not necessary. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor found quite absurd. Stand taken by the State is not at all reliable because the FIR has been registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act without compliance of Section 17A of the Act thereby rendering the registration of the FIR illegal. Learned counsel refers the Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act which was incorporated in the said Act w.e.f. 26th July, 2018. The instant case is pending before the Special Court which implies that the section of Prevention of Corruption Act had not been deleted or removed till date by the investigating agency meaning thereby that the investigation is still continuing under the provision of the said Act. Even, the notices which have been served upon the petitioners reflect the offences under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act and when the investigation is continuing without following the procedure laid down under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the entire proceeding should be quashed. The provision is mandatory requirement before conducting any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence done by a public servant where the offence alleged is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by the public servant in discharge of his public functions without previous approval, inter alia, of the authority competent to remove the public servant from his Office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. 10. 10. Learned counsel further pointed out that on receipt of complaint, the investigating agency ought to have obtained sanction from the Competent Authority before registration of FIR and investigation in respect of the accused persons who have implicated into this case as some of the accused persons have been employed by the Central Government. To bolster his contention, he placed reliance of a judgment passed in Yashwant Singh and Others vs. Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director and Another, (2020) 2 SCC 338 . 11. It is necessary to mention the importance of Sec. 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Sec. 17A was brought into force on 26/7/2018, by the Amending Act of 2018. 11. It is necessary to mention the importance of Sec. 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Sec. 17A was brought into force on 26/7/2018, by the Amending Act of 2018. Sec. 17A runs as follows: "17-A. Enquiry or inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties.- No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval – (a) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of that Government; (b) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of that Government; (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed: Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person; Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this Sec. within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month." In terms of the above extracted provision of law, introduced by an amendment, no Police Officer shall conduct any enquiry, inquiry or investigation, into any offence alleged, to have been committed by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decisions taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval of the competent authority. 12. 12. Clause (a) thereof provides that in case of public servant who is or was employed in connection with the affairs of the Union at the time when the offence alleged to have been committed, the previous approval of the Central Government shall be obtained. Clause (b) likewise provides that in case of a public servant who is or was an employee in connection with the affairs of the State at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, the approval of the State Government shall be obtained before proceeding. Clause (c) provides that in case of any other person who comes within the definition of public servant previous approval of the competent authority to remove him from office at the time when the offence alleged to have been committed should be obtained. The narrative hereinabove cannot but indicate that the object of the Section was to protect public servants from malicious, fabricated or baseless prosecution. Therefore, if enquiry into the circumstances in which the alleged administrative or official act was done by the public servant or where malfeasance committed by the public servant which would involve an element of dishonesty or impropriety, is to be proceeded against, the approval of the competent authority is imperative under Sec. 17A of the Act. 13. The necessity of Sec. 17A is also considered by the Apex Court in the case of YASHWANT SINHA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, (2020) 2 SCC 338 . The Apex Court though did not consider as to how the previous approval of the competent authority has to be taken, but considered the amendment and its importance in the following paragraphs: "117. In terms of Sec. 17-A, no police officer is permitted to conduct any enquiry or inquiry or conduct investigation into any offence done by a public servant where the offence alleged is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by the public servant in discharge of his public functions without previous approval, inter alia, of the authority competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. In respect of the public servant, who is involved in this case, it is clause (c), which is applicable. Unless, therefore, there is previous approval, there could be neither inquiry or enquiry or investigation. In respect of the public servant, who is involved in this case, it is clause (c), which is applicable. Unless, therefore, there is previous approval, there could be neither inquiry or enquiry or investigation. It is in this context apposite to notice that the complaint, which has been filed by the petitioners in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018, moved before the first respondent CBI, is done after Sec. 17-A was inserted. The complaint is dtd. 4/10/2018. Para 5 sets out the relief which is sought in the complaint which is to register an FIR under various provisions. Paras 6 and 7 of the complaint are relevant in the context of Sec. 17-A, which read as follows: "6. We are also aware that recently, Sec. 17- A of the Act has been brought in by way of an amendment to introduce the requirement of prior permission of the Government for investigation or inquiry under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 7. We are also aware that this will place you in the peculiar situation, of having to ask the accused himself, for permission to investigate a case against him. We realise that your hands are tied in this matter, but we request you to at least take the first step, of seeking permission of the Government under Sec. 17- A of the Prevention of Corruption Act for investigating this offence and under which, "the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this Sec. within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month". (Emphasis supplied) 118. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the complaint fully knowing that Sec. 17-A constituted a bar to any inquiry or enquiry or investigation unless there was previous approval. In fact, a request is made to at least take the first step of seeking permission under Sec. 17- A of the 2018 Act. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018 was filed on 24/10/2018 and the complaint is based on non-registration of the FIR. There is no challenge to Sec. 17-A. Under the law, as it stood, both on the date of filing the petition and even as of today, Sec. 17-A continues to be on the statute book and it constitutes a bar to any inquiry or enquiry or investigation. There is no challenge to Sec. 17-A. Under the law, as it stood, both on the date of filing the petition and even as of today, Sec. 17-A continues to be on the statute book and it constitutes a bar to any inquiry or enquiry or investigation. The petitioners themselves, in the complaint, request to seek approval in terms of Sec. 17-A but when it comes to the relief sought in the writ petition, there was no relief claimed in this behalf. 119. Even proceeding on the basis that on petitioners' complaint, an FIR must be registered as it purports to disclose cognizable offences and the Court must so direct, will it not be a futile exercise having regard to Sec. 17-A. I am, therefore, of the view that though otherwise the petitioners in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018 may have made out a case, having regard to the law actually laid down in Lalita Kumari [Lalita kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524], and more importantly, Sec. 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in a review petition, the petitioners cannot succeed. However, it is my view that the judgment sought to be reviewed, would not stand in the way of the first respondent in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018 from taking action on Ext. P-1, complaint in accordance with law and subject to first respondent obtaining previous approval under Sec. 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act." 14. In the light of Sec. 17A creating a protective filter for vexatious, fabricated and frivolous prosecution and complaints to pass muster to the rigors of Sec. 17A, this Court is of the considered view that it must be observed with stringently keeping in mind of public interest and protection available to such officers against whom offences are alleged, failing which many a time it would result in a vexatious prosecution. This cannot, however, be considered as a secure for the guilty, but a safeguard for the innocent. Therefore, it becomes mandatory. In the light of no approval granted for registering the impugned crime by the competent authority, the registration of crime automatically collapses. 15. This Court does not find the investigating officer has removed or deleted the sections under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act from the instant case. Therefore, it becomes mandatory. In the light of no approval granted for registering the impugned crime by the competent authority, the registration of crime automatically collapses. 15. This Court does not find the investigating officer has removed or deleted the sections under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act from the instant case. Even no prayer has been made before the concerned Special Court to remove or delete the charges punishable under Sections 7/7A/8/11/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. No sanction obtained till date. Accordingly, the FIR and investigation are found bereft of necessary sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (as amended in 2018). Consequently, answer is in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the proceeding against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. 16. So far as the last question is concerned, in the present case, the concerned organisation AIIMS, Kalyani appointed an out source agency i.e. BECIL for conducting recruitment process for appointment of the employees for posting to declared vacancies for the purpose of smooth running of the institution or organisation but the petitioner no. 1 herein has been recommended for the post of Data Entry Operator even she could not qualify for the said post which itself indicates the authority concerned has deprived other candidates who had secured more marks than the present petitioner no. 1. It would be definitely violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, in the present facts and circumstances of this case, the authority has no discretionary power to recommend the candidates for appointment in a condition when the BECIL had already published the result after inviting application from the candidates for the declared vacancies and conducting examinations. 17. In the light of above discussions, analysis and in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered view that the proceeding against the present petitioners are deemed as an abuse of process of law because without obtaining proper sanction, a case being D.R. Case No. 2812/2022 arising out of Kalyani Police Station Case No. 241/2022 dated 20.05.2022 under Sections 406/420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7/7A/8/11/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered for causing investigation. Consequently, this Court can exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC to quash the proceeding to secure the end of justice and prevent an abuse of process. 18. Accordingly, CRR 2857 of 2022 is, thus, allowed. Connected applications, if any, are also, thus, disposed of. 19. In such a situation, the proceeding being D.R. Case No. 2812/2022 arising out of Kalyani Police Station Case No. 241/2022 dated 20.05.2022 under Sections 406/420/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7/7A/8/11/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 stands quashed with regards to the present petitioners. 20. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the learned Court below for information. 21. Case Diary is to be returned to the learned counsel for the State. 22. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 23. Parties will act on the server copies of this judgment uploaded on the website of this Court. 24. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, is to be given as expeditiously to the parties on compliance of all legal formalities.