The act of the respondent is not considered when any empanelled candidate did not feel aggrieved by the act caused: High Court Of Calcutta

Getting an appointment as Assistant Professor in the subject Geography, belonging to the OBC- A category was an issue in the case and, this was held in the judgement passed by a single bench judge comprising HON’BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA, in the matter Rent Biswas Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. And  Md. Azfar Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. [WPA No. 5970 of 2021] & [WPA 9231 of 2021].

A notification was published by the West Bengal College Service Commission, inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment following the WB College Service Commission Regulations, 2012. The petitioners belong to the OBC- A category. Both of them participated in the recruitment process initiated by the Commission for being appointed as Assistant Professor in the subject Geography. The petitioners were selected to participate in the interview also in the merit panel Rent Biswas was placed in rank 12 and Md. Azfar Mondal was placed in rank 13 in the OBC-A category, but a recommendation letter was not issued in their favour.

The candidate named Md. Akhtar Hasinur Rahman was recommended for being appointed in the Maharajadhiraja Udaychand Women’s College, Burdwan and he joined the post in July 2020 but suddenly expired in the first week of February 2021. They also mentioned that sent requisition for filling up the vacant post under the OBC-A category but the same was not filled up initially.

The petitioners pray that their names may be recommended in either of the two vacancies which arose during the validity period of the panel. In regards vacancy in Surendranath College for Women, the same could not be filled up by recommendation due to the transfer order issued by the Higher Education Department on 5th February 2021.

And also the report further mentions that the requisition submitted by Rabindra Mahavidyalaya on 26th March 2021 shall be guided by Advertisement No. 1 of 2020 4 which was published long before the vacancy in Rabindra Mahavidyalaya was reported, the learned advocate represents, the vacancy can neither be declared nor requisition is sent to the Commission as the person who had joined the post is yet to be reported dead either by the police of by his family members.

The requisition cannot be forwarded to the Commission as there is no valid evidence of the death of the Professor and according to the Commission until and unless a valid and complete requisition is received. Meanwhile, the respondents pray for the dismissal of the writ petitions. In response to the submission made by the respondents, the petitioners have relied upon the First Information Report registered in the Purba Bardhaman Sadar P.S on 3rd February 2021. It was also been submitted that the FIR is a Government document and is enough proof of the death of the professor.

The vacancy in Rabindra Mahavidyalaya, admittedly the transfer order of the professor from Rabindra Mahavidyalaya to Surendranath College for Women was issued during the validity period of the panel. Accordingly, there is a vacancy to be filled up in Rabindra Mahavidyalaya, And also In Nirvik Banerjee –vs- the University of Burdwan reported in [2014 3 CLJ (Cal) 411] the Court considered the issue as to whether the vacancies arising after the issue of advertisement or preparation of the panel can be filled up from the same panel.

The Court in answer to the above has laid down that if any empanelled candidate did not feel aggrieved enough by the act of the respondent in not considering their candidature for an appointment, the Court ought not to embark on a search process and identify them and elicit from them whether they are still interested in the subject post. The candidates who have brought the cause to the Court should not be denied justice.

An appeal and application for stay were filed against the order dated 16th July 2013 and the Hon’ble Appeal Court by order dated 7th October 2013 in [MAT 1442 of 2013 with CAN 10219 of 2013] was pleased to reject the prayer for stay. The order of the learned Trial Judge was thereafter complied by the Commission and the same has been recorded in the order dated 28th January 2014 passed in [WPCRC 396 (W) of 2013].

The court perused the facts and argument’s presented, it believed that – The Commission was directed to verify about the existence of the two vacancies and if the vacancies are indeed available, conduct re-counselling from the empanelled candidates for filling up the said posts, notwithstanding the fact 8 that the validity of the panel expired in the meantime, as the writ petition was filed when the panel was valid[WPA 5970 of 2021 and WPA 9231 of 2021]were disposed of.

Click here for judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *