Blog

WPA 7283 of 2020 with WPA 507 of 2021

Case: Arnab Roy v State of WB & Ors with another connected application.

Appearance

Petitioner : Mr. Pinaki Dhole Mr. Sayan Datta

Respondent : Mr. Soumen Kr. Dutta Mr. Subhas Jana

Last Heard On: October 16, 2023

judgement On: November 16, 2023

CORAM: Justice: Shekhar B. Saraf

Introduction

The High Court of Calcutta noticed that the deficiency relating to the mechanism for employing the youth has caused a high percentage of the unemployment rate in the country.

The court was handing out the dispute against the action of the Additional District Inspector of Schools (SE), Purba Medinapur in the recruitment process to hire one clerk and two laboratory attendant, ts, being carried out by the managing committee of Marishda BKJ Banipith School,

 

Facts of the case

the managing committee of Marishda BKJ Banipith School filed two writ petitions wherein the coordinate bench of this court instructed respondent no. 3 to grant prior permission for the appointment of the position of clerk The school authorities also published an advertisement in the newspaper thereby, inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up the position of clerk and laboratory attendant for the school concerned within 10 days from the date of the notification. The petitioner submits that having the requisite qualifications, he applied for the position of clerk.

 

The interview date was fixed on February 3, 2019. However, it was later changed to January 19, 2020. The DI was informed of this delay vide the same letter dated January 25, 2019, stating that owing to some ‘unwanting situation’, the interviews had to be postponed and all candidates had been duly informed of the delay. The school authorities received neither any approval nor rejection of the change in the date of the interview from the DI.

Counsel relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. The Managing Committee, Nirjharini S.B. Vidyalaya (H.S) Et c (2017) to highlight that the mere initiation of a selection process according to new recruitment rules would not create any vested rights in favor of the candidates.

Analysis of the court

The time frame of 45 days as enshrined under Rule 8 (5) (a) is discretionary in nature and shall not thwart the entire selection process the school authorities had informed the DI that they would be postponing the interview due to an ‘unwanting situation’.

The DI neither approved nor rejected the plea for a change of interview date. After keeping silent despite being intimated about the change in interview date, the ADI cannot penalize the School Authorities vide the impugned memo.

The qualifications of the candidate shall be examined on the last date of application unless otherwise specified in the advertisement. The petitioner was eighteen years of age on the date of the advertisement April 25, 2017, thus para 4(b) of the 2005 Rules does not stand violated.

The petitioners have neither the vested right of selection nor the right to be considered for appointment.

The aforementioned Writ Petitions WPA 7283/2020 and WPA 507/2021 are dismissed

There shall be no order as to the costs

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By

Kaulav roy chowdhury
click to view the judgement