Brintam Das vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

Tapabrata Chakraborty, J

Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept on record.

Mr. Jana, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and six others participated in a selection process conducted by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (in short, the Commission) for appointment to the post of Librarian. All of them emerged to be successful in the selection process and were recommended for appointment in different schools in the district of Dakshin Dinajpur in the year 2011. Their appointments were also provisionally approved by the respondent no.5. Subsequent thereto, it was ascertained by the State authorities that ten librarians were appointed and approved against non-sanctioned posts. Accordingly, by a memo dated 28th March, 2014, the Deputy Director of School Education, West Bengal intimated such facts to the respondent no.3. As no steps were taken thereafter, the petitioner and six others preferred a writ petition being W.P. No.4820 (W) of 2015 which was disposed of by an order dated 24th February, 2015 directing the respondent no.3 to take appropriate decision. Pursuant to the said order, the respondent no.3 took a decision on 9th July, 2015 observing inter alia that the librarians had been appointed following the prescribed procedure and there is no irregularity as regards their appointment and direction was issued to retain them in the concerned posts in the same schools till appropriate vacancies are detected in the district, in which their appointment can be regularised. Subsequent thereto, seven vacancies were detected and the list of such vacancies was forwarded by the respondent no.5 to the respondent no.4 vide memo dated 19th February, 2016. The petitioner herein thereafter preferred a writ petition being W.P. No.3867 (W) of 2016 seeking direction upon the authorities to place the petitioner and six others in the vacancies detected strictly in accordance with the merit of the participants in the selection process. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 14th December, 2016 granting such relief to the petitioner. Pursuant to the said order, the matter was considered and the Secretary, School Education Department, Government of West Bengal requested the Commission to submit its opinion on counselling proposal submitted by the writ petitioner, as would be explicit from the memo dated 8th June, 2017. Subsequent thereto, by a memo dated 7th May, 2018 the respondent no.6 was requested to grant recommendation for appointment of the petitioner and others.

Mr. Jana submits that subsequent to issuance of the memo dated 7th May, 2018, no further steps have been taken by the authorities.

Ms. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that there are seven existing vacancies in the post of librarian in the district of Dakshin Dinajpur and to resolve the issue finally counselling needs to be conducted by the Commission.

Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned advocate appearing for the Commission submits that the selection process was duly conducted by the authorities of the said Commission and recommendations were issued in the year 2011, in accordance with law and as per the vacancies reported.

Indisputably, the petitioner and six others emerged to be successful in the selection process and were appointed to the post of librarian in the year 2011. They joined the posts offered in the respective schools and are working in the same. It was subsequently ascertained by the State authorities that the petitioner and six others, similarly situated and circumstanced persons, have been accommodated against non-sanctioned posts. On the basis of a direction passed by this Court the issue was considered and a decision was taken by the respondent no.3 on 9th July, 2015 wherefrom it appears that librarians were appointed through the recruitment process and that there is no irregularity in connection with such appointment and it was directed that the posts in which the petitioners and six others have been accommodated would be retained till fresh vacancies are detected. Accordingly, by a memo dated 10th February, 2016 the respondent no.3 directed the respondent no. 5 to find out seven vacancies with definite sanctioning memo and to send a proposal to regularise the service of those librarians. Subsequent thereto, seven vacancies were detected and seven persons including the petitioner were placed in the respective vacancies, as would be explicit from the memo dated 19th February, 2016 issued by the respondent no. 5. However, the placement of the petitioner and six others was not in accordance with the merit position of the respective candidates. Aggrieved thereby and claiming permanent approval, the petitioner herein preferred a writ petition being W.P. 3867 (W) of 2016. Though the six others, similarly situated and circumstanced persons as the petitioner, were not impleaded, the Court issued direction in respect of all the seven candidates including the petitioner. By an order dated 14th December, 2016, the Court directed Secretary, School Education Department to "grant appointment to the petitioner as well as the persons similarly situated and circumstanced as that of the petitioner in terms of the vacancies identified by the District Inspector of Schools".

Pursuant to the said order, the Principal Secretary of School Education Department dated 7th May, 2018 requested the Commission "to grant recommendation for appointment of the petitioner as well as the persons similarly situated and circumstanced as that of the petitioner in terms of the vacancy identified by the District Inspector of Schools in the writing dated February 19, 2016 in accordance with law and in accordance with the merit of the participants in the selection process. If it is found that the earlier recommendation was made by the Commission against those vacancies which are not available, the Central Commission may withdraw the earlier recommendation and may make fresh recommendation as per the Hon'ble High Court order as stated above".

By the memo dated 19th February, 2016, the respondent no.5 had placed the candidates in seven different vacancies. Such placement is not in terms of the rank secured by the respective candidates in the concerned Regional Level Selection Test conducted by the Commission. As such, to resolve the dispute finally counselling needs to be conducted by the Commission strictly in terms of the merit of the respective candidates so that the petitioner and others can opt for the respective vacancies.

Accordingly, this Court directs the authorities of the Commission being the respondent nos.6 and 7 herein to fix a date of counselling and intimate such date to the petitioner and six similarly circumstanced candidates, whose names are appearing in the memo issued by the respondent no.5 on 19th February, 2016. Upon conducting such counselling, fresh recommendations shall be issued by the Commission to the seven candidates including the petitioner.

The above exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order along with a copy of the writ petition.

Upon issuance of such recommendation, the respective schools shall allow the petitioner and others to join their respective posts within a period of four weeks thereafter and intimate such steps taken to the respondent no.5, who shall thereafter finally approve such appointment of the petitioner and the similarly circumstanced persons forthwith.

Needless to observe the petitioner and six others, similarly circumstanced candidates, shall be treated to be in regular service from the date of their initial appointment.

With the above directions and observations the writ petition is disposed of.

There shall however be no order as to costs.

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