Anil Das & Ors vs Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta & Ors

Protik Prakash Banerjee, J

The Court : This is a writ petition where the following reliefs have been prayed for :-

"a) A Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, their agents and/or subordinates to show cause and/or sufficient cause as to why the appointment/promotion order No. 72 of 2016, 73 of 2016 and Order No.80 of 2016 respectively being Annexure "P-9" herein on the basis of the panel prepared on 25th November, 2009 being Annexure "P-1" herein will not be cancelled and/or set aside;

b) A Writ in the nature of quo-warranto and/or like nature to cancel and/or set aside the appointment/promotion order Nos. 72, 73 of 2016 and Order No.80 of 2016 being Annexure "P-9" herein and as per panel prepared on 25th November, 2009 being Annexure "P-1" herein;

c) A Writ in the nature of mandamus and/or like nature commanding the respondents, their agents and/or subordinates to give promotion/appointment to the petitioners on the basis of the seniority to the posts of Duftry (Group-D) and Record Arranger (Group-C);

d) A Writ in the nature of Certiorari and /or like nature to produce all the records pertaining to the instant case so that after perusal of the same conscionable justice may be done by this Hon'ble Court;"

By my order dated April 23, 2019 passed in this matter I had recorded that in the affidavit-in-opposition the High Court Administration has taken a stand that the last extension of the panel was made in or about November, 2016. I had recorded that the extension of the panel must be by a specific order. Thereafter, on the prayer of the learned advocate by the petitioner and after considering the submissions made by the parties on September 4, 2019, I had directed as follows :

"I am told that if I direct any affidavit to be filed, in that case, it will have to go thorough a process of waiting as desired by the Hon'ble Division Bench. In that view of the matter, so that the duty of the High Court Administration under Right to Information Act is discharged for which reason no affidavit is required, I direct the High Court Administration through the learned Registrar, Original Side to furnish a copy of the said order under the cover of a letter addressed to the learned advocate for the petitioners who shall be also required to give a copy thereof to Mr. Paul for the applicant in GA No. 1768 of 2019."

Mr. Tewari, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that he has received a letter dated September 13, 2019 addressed to his learned advocate-on-record and issued by the learned Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta. This Memo No.4720 RG dated 13.09.2019 reads as follows :

"Sir,

In compliance with the Order dated 4th September, 2019 of the Hon'ble Justice Protik Prakash Banerjee in connection with G.A. No. 1768 of 2019, in W.P. No. 51 of 2017 this is to inform you that The Hon'ble The Chief Justice, High Court, Calcutta vide Order dated 22.11.2016 has been pleased to extend the panel till it is exhausted."

While Mr. Tewari submits that this is not in compliance with my order dated September 4, 2019, I find that the said communication by the learned Registrar General clearly indicates that the panel was extended by the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated November 22, 2016. In other words, a specific order has been particularly mentioned. This order has not been challenged in the writ petition. Without challenging this order, no relief as envisaged in the writ petition can be granted to the writ petitioner. The contention of Mr. Tewari that the said communication does not allow him to know the contents of the order to enable him to challenge it, is by itself self-defeating. Once he knows there is an order which has been communicated to him even if the copy of the said order is not granted to him, nothing prevents him from asking for the same to be rescinded if so advised in accordance with law. I hold that the letter dated September 13, 2019 is in substantial compliance with my order dated September 4, 2019.

In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is disposed of without going into merits but with the following observations :

a) The affidavits used shall continue to bind all the parties and shall be retained with the record of this case.

b) The communication of the order dated November 22, 2016 by Memo No.4720 RG dated 13.09.2019 shall form part of the records.

c) Mr. Tewari's clients shall be at liberty to file a fresh writ petition on the self-same cause of action including any challenge to the order dated November 22, 2016 as communicated to him by the memo No. 4720 dated 13.09.2019.

d) The point that there is lack of transparency in not communicating to him the exact copy of the order and all the points including the question of delay are left open.

The writ petition is disposed of, as is the application for addition of party.

The application for addition of parties, therefore, is also dismissed. Liberty is granted to the clients of Mr. Paul to apply afresh in the event that Mr. Tewari's clients file writ petition under the liberty granted as above.

Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.