Haydar Ali Molla & Ors. vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

The petitioners are successful candidates in a selection process. The petitioners assail an order of the Director of Local Bodies by which the selection

process has been declared as null and void. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that, the impugned order is a product of a

direction issued by the writ Court in WP No.12365(W) of 2017 (Sk. Sarafat Ali & Ors. Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.) and W.P. No.

11473(W) of 2017 (Hyder Ali Molla & Ors. Versus the State of West Bengal & Ors.).

The impugned order finds that, the two near relatives of the Chairperson of the municipality participated in the selection process. It also finds that, the

chairperson of the municipality admitted that, two selected candidates were the near relatives of the chairperson. It also notes that, the municipality

had taken a resolution to eliminate those two near relatives from the panel of successful candidates in the selection process.

Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner relies upon a decision in the case of State of Rajasthan Versus Bhawani and Another reported in

(2003) 7 Supreme Court Cases 291 and submits that, where the beneficiaries of the illegality can be weeded out, the entire selection process need not

be declared as null and void. Consequently, he submits that, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The State and the municipality are represented.

Learned Advocate appearing for the municipality submits that, by a resolution dated July 30, 2017, the municipality had resolved to eliminate the two

near relatives of the then chairperson from the list of successful candidates in the selection process. It appears from the records that, the municipality

had undertaken a selection process. Two persons who admittedly were the near relatives of the then chairperson of the municipality participated in the

selection process and became successful. Apparently, the municipality by a resolution dated July 30, 2017 resolved to eliminate the near relatives from

the list of successful candidates of the selected panel.

However, two writ petitions were filed before the Hon’ble High Court being WP No.12365(W) of 2017 (Sk. Sarafat Ali & Ors. Versus The State

of West Bengal & Ors.) and WP No.11473(W) of 2017 (Hayder Ali Molla & Ors. Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.). Both the writ petitions

were disposed of by an order dated December 12, 2017, requiring the Director of Local Bodies to arrive at a conclusion as to the allegation of

likelihood of bias. The Director of Local Bodies was directed to take into consideration all relevant materials and informations which may be supplied

by the writ petitioners of Sk. Sarafat Ali & Ors. (supra). The Director of Local Bodies was directed that, in the event the conclusion with regard to

the allegation of likelihood of bias is not established, then the Director of Local Bodies will consider the panel for approval.

Pursuant to and in terms of such direction dated December 12, 2017 passed by the High Court in the two writ petitions, the Director of Local Bodies

enquired into the subject. The impugned order records that, the Director of Local Bodies in terms of such order examined the relevant materials and

informations supplied by the writ petitioner of Sk. Sarafat Ali & Ors. (supra) and other guidelines and notifications of the State Government on the

subject.

The writ petitioners of both the writ petitions were given a hearing. The chairperson of the Dankuni municipality was also heard. The chairperson of

Dankuni municipality admitted that, two near relatives of such chairperson were in the list of the successful candidates in the selection process. The

Director of Local Bodies finds in the impugned order that, the allegation of the petitioners of Sk. Sarafat Ali and Ors. (supra) stands substantiated.

The impugned order finds that since, the near relatives of the chairperson who had participated in the selection process were in the list of successful

candidates, although they were subsequently eliminated, the selection process stood vitiated. As a writ Court, I need not act as an appellate authority,

reappraise the evidence before the adjudicating authority, substitute my wisdom with that of the adjudicating authority. The impugned order has not

been substantiated to be passed in breach of natural justice or without jurisdiction or being perverse. Bhawani and Another (supra) is a case relating to

a proceedings under the Indian Penal Code. The ratio laid down therein has no manner of application in the facts of the present case.

In such circumstances, no interference is called for. WP No.13352(W) of 2018 is dismissed. No order as to costs. Urgent certified website copies of

this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.