AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Debangsu Basak, J
The writ petition is directed against an order dated September 13, 2013 passed in OA-874 of 2013.
By the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the original application finding no merit therein.
At the outset, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners submits that, of the writ petitioners filing the writ petition, only writ petitioner no.2 seeks to proceed with the writ petition.
In view of such submission, the writ petition survives for the writ petitioner no.2 only. WP.ST 441 of 2013 is dismissed so far as writ petitioner nos.1, 3 and 4 are concerned.
Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner no.2 submits that, the writ petitioner no.2 participated in a selection process where the writ petitioner no.2 ranked 109 in the General category. He submits that, prior to the initiation of the selection process, vacancies were not declared. Vacancies were subsequently declared. He draws the attention of the Court to the fact that two departments of the State applied for dereservation of the posts which were granted by the Public Service Commission. He draws the attention of the Court to the writings of the State Government where, certain departments of the State Government as late as on September 23, 2013, applied for dereservation of the posts. The Public Service Commission did not respond thereto.
Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner no.2 draws the attention of the Court to the prayers made in the original application. He submits that the prayers in the original application are in two compartments. One compartment is with regard to the issuance of direction upon the concerned requisitioning departments except the Public Works Department to forthwith initiate appropriate steps for dereservation of respective vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and that, the other compartment was with regard to filling up the vacancies from the dereserved category.
In support of his contention that, dereservation can be directed, he relies upon 2003 SCC OnLine Cal 713 ( Kazi Abdul Hassem & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). He relies upon (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 678 ( East Coast Railway and Another vs. Mahadev Appa Rao and Others) for the proposition that, the authorities cannot act arbitrarily. According to him, the Public Service Commission acted arbitrarily in not responding to the request for dereservation made by the various departments of the State.
Public Service Commission is represented.
Writ petitioner no.2 participated in the selection process for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). A panel was prepared. Writ petitioner no.2 was placed in the rank of 109. He was in the General category. The last empanelled candidate who was granted appointment in the General category was Serial No.72.
Apparently, some of the departments of the State applied for dereservation which was granted by the Public Service Commission. Subsequently, there are letters issued by the Irrigation and Waterways Department seeking dereservation from the Public Service Commission.
There are two letters issued by the Irrigation and Waterways Department of the State of West Bengal for dereservation. The first letter is dated July 24, 2013 where it is noted that the panel was to expire on July 29, 2013. The second letter is dated September 23, 2013 which is after the expiry of the panel. The writ petitioner approached the Tribunal sometime in July 2013 going by the date of verification of the original application, it was filed on July 12, 2013. However, as noted above, the panel was scheduled to expire on July 29, 2013.
A candidate in a selection process does not possess a vested right in the appointment to the post. He, however, is with the right to be considered fairly in the selection process for the appointment to the post. Writ petitioner no.2 herein participated in the selection process for Assistant Engineer (Civil). He was ranked 109 in the merit list in the General Category. The last candidate granted appointed was at Serial No.72.
Kazi Abdul Hassem & Ors (supra) was rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court. Department informs us that two appeals were preferred in respect of the judgment and order dated January 1, 2003, being FMA 12 of 2017 and FMA 1237 of 2017. Apparently, FMA 1237 of 2017 was disposed of. In any event, the facts of the present case are different from Kazi Abdul Hassem & Ors. (supra). There, the empanelled candidates who participated in the selection of a judicial post were governed by existing directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Moreover, although, the vacancies were not declared prior to the commencement of the selection process, the life of the panel prepared apparently did not expire. Directions were passed in light of the subsisting orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court governing such field.
East Coast Railway and Another (supra) considers arbitrariness in a selection process. There, a selection process to a post was cancelled without giving any reasons. In such context, the Supreme Court held that, any administrative decision is required to be informed with reasons. It discussed about the concept of arbitrariness. In the facts of the present case, the authorities did not cancel the selection process.
Essentially, the writ petitioner no.2 seeks a direction upon the Public Service Commission to dereserve a post. Dereservation is within the domain of the Public Service Commission. A candidate in a selection process cannot be said to be vested with a right to seek dereservation of a post which is otherwise governed by the reservation policy.
Moreover, there are various parameters for the purpose of dereservation. It is not the case of the writ petitioner no.2 that all the parameters required for dereservation stood fulfilled and that the Public Service Commission did not dereserve a post despite fulfillment of such conditions.
In such circumstances, we find no merit in the present writ petition.
WP.ST 441 of 2013 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
I Agree.