AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Court : In terms of my order dated May 7, 2019 the petitioners have effected service on the learned Registrar General of this Court. The said service was effected on May 8, 2019. The petitioners are given liberty to affirm an affidavit of service bringing on record the acknowledgement of receipt on behalf of learned Registrar General.
A report has been submitted by the learned Registrar General under his signature. The report is dated May 13, 2019. It is based upon the report submitted by the learned Assistant Registrar Establishment (Appellate Side) which have been duly forwarded by the appropriate officers of the Registry. It appears from the said report as follows:-
"It appears from the said report that two separate panels both dated 12.11.2009 were prepared by the Administration - one for appointment to the post of Duftry and Record Arranger {consisting of 35 (thirty five) incumbents who have passed in both the subjects of reading and writing} and the another for appointment exclusively to the post of Duftry {consisting of 15 (fifteen) incumbents who have passed in only one subject, either reading or writing} [marked as Flag -E1 & E2 respectively]. The validity of two such panels were for (03) three years (marked at Flag-E) and were extended time and again with the kind approval of the then Hon'ble the Chief Justices under Their Lordships' orders dated 01.03.2010, 24.09.2012, 25.03.2013 and 16.12.2013 (marked at Flag-F, G, H & I respectively). Ultimately the panel for appointment to the post of Duftry and Record Arranger was extended by the then Hon'ble the Chief Justice for the last time on 22.11. 2016 with the following direction:
"Panel extended till it is exhausted." (marked at Flag-J).
It is further humbly submitted that it appears from the said report that out of the 35 (thirty five) candidates, empanelled for promotion to the post of Duftry and Record Arranger, the last three empanelled candidates namely Sri. Pratap Ghosh, Sri Sukumar Ghosh and Sri Shyamal Kumar Ghosh are not promoted to the post of Record Arranger as yet. They were appointed, initially, for the post of Duftry, on promotion from the post of Group-D(R), with a rider that such promotional appointment shall abide by the final decision of the instant matter i.e. W.P. 51 of 2017 under direction of the then Hon'ble The Chief Justice (in 2018) (marked as Flag-D1 & D2) and also by the then Ld. Registrar General (in 2017) (marked as Flag-C)."
From the said report it appears that the panel had been extended till exhaustion from the administrative side of this Court by His Lordship The Hon'ble Chief Justice on November 22, 2016. It also appears that from the panel of thirty five candidates empanelled for promotion to the post of Duftry and Record Arranger only three empanelled candidates have not been promoted to the post of Record Arranger. They were appointed to the post of Duftry on promotion from Group -D(R) with a rider that such promotional appointment was to abide by the final decision of the present writ petition.
Therefore, it is clear that in the event that I hold in favour of the writ petitioners the appointment of this three empanelled candidates on promotion to the post of Duftry shall cease to exist, in other words, the promotional appointment shall stand cancelled. Therefore, it is not proper to hear the matter finally in the absence of the said three empanelled candidates.
I grant liberty to the writ petitioners represented by Mr.Anil Das in person to add the said Sri. Pratap Ghosh, Sri Sukumar Ghosh and Sri Shyamal Kumar Ghosh as party respondents to this writ petition here and now in the presence of the principal officer of this Court along with their particulars showing that they are working for gain in this Court.
The writ petitioner shall cause a service of the writ petition and the pleadings including affidavits used in the matter on the added respondents. The added respondents should be granted liberty to use an affidavit-in-opposition to which the writ petitioners shall be entitled to file a reply. Such service must be completed by May 21, 2019. The opposition must be affirmed by June 11, 2019 and a copy thereof served on the writ petitioners through the said writ petitioner appearing in person; reply if any thereof, shall be filed within a period of June 18, 2019. The matter to appear on June 20, 2019 in the supplementary list as a 'Part Heard Matter'. It shall retain to its position.