Pronay Bose vs The State of West Bengal and Others

Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.—The Petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the Director of Industrial Training, West Bengal dated January 3, 2006 rejecting his request to appoint him as skilled workman (genral maintenance) on permanent basis, He was working as a peon in Swam) Mahadebananda Silpa Vidyapith. By an order dated June17, 1983 the secretary of the institute appointed him as as skilled workman (general maintenance) of the institute. He had been officiating in that post from June 10, 1983. The appointment ws subject to approval of the director of technical education. The reference for approval was turned down by the authority concrned by order dated June 18, 1986.

It is the case of the Petitioner that even thereafter the institute authorities permitted him to continue to work as skilled workman. His further case is that on February 8, 1994 the governing body of the institute adopted a resolution to refer the matter for consideration of the director of technicaleducation on humanitarian ground. By an order dated November 27, 1995 the institute authority directed the Petitioner to work as peon. It was stated in the order that the director of technical education had declined to approve his working as skilled workman.

In 2005 he moved a writ petition before this Court, He alleged non-consideration of his representation dated March 17, 2005. He actually questioned the decision of the director of technical education declining, to approve his appointment as skilled workman. By order dated July 6, 2005 that writ petition was disposed of directing the director of technical education to give a reasoned decision in the Petitioner''s representation. This is how the impugned decision has come to be given.

Counsel argues that since the govgerning body of the institute by its resolution taken in 1994 recommended the case of the Petitioner after finding him suitable for the post of skilled workman; there was no reason for the director of industrial training to hold that having been not found suitable, the Petitioner was not entitled to claim permanent appointment to the post of skilled workman. Counsel further argues that since for a very long time the Petitioner satisfactorily worked as a silled workman, the authority should not have rejected the request for making him permanent.

In the impugned decision the authority noticed that in 1983 the Petitioner was appointed on a purely temporary basis and subject to approval of the competent authority ; that in 1986 the temporary appointment was nullified by the competent authority ; that the Petitioner was never selected according to the recruitment rules ; that on two occasions the Petitioner had been found unsuitable for the post of skilled workman ; tha the rusult of the selection process of 1986 was not questioned by the Petitioner in any manner whatsoever.

On the facts and in the circumstances noticed by the authority giving the impugned decision, I am unable to agree with counsel for the Petitioner that the authority acted illegally or wrongfully. Simply by working for a few years, the Petitioner did not acquire any right to get permanent appointment to the post of skilled workman. The post was to be filled according to the reruitment rules. Only a duly selected person was to be appointed, emporary appointment given to the Petitioner came to an end in June 1986. There was no occasion for the institute to permit the Petitioner to work even after the authoirty declined to approve the temporary appointment.

The institute had no authority to recommend the case for consderation on humanitarian ground. In any case, the position was again made clear by the competent authority in 1995. In 2005 there was no cause of action. However, in compliance with the order of this Court the authority has given the reasond decision. There is absolutely no reason to interfere with it, needless to say that the Petitioner is at liberty to participate in the selection process, if he is otherwise eligible, if any process is initiated by the authorities for filling the post, if it is still vacant.

For these reasons the writ petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be ho order for costs in it.

Copy of this order duly authenticated by A.R. (C) or A.C.O. shall be given to advocates for the parties, on usual undertakings.