Shankar Roy & Anr vs Raiganj Municipality & Ors

Amrita Sinha, J

Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be taken on record.

Two petitioners have joined in filing the instant writ petition by putting in only one court fees.

The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners is directed to deposit the deficit court fees by 10th January, 2020. In default, the order passed herein shall be restricted in respect of the petitioner No.1 and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed in respect of the other.

The petitioners are serving in the Raiganj Municipality. The petitioner No.1 is in service on and from 2005 and the petitioner No.2 is working since 2006.

The Municipality published a recruitment notice on 28th December, 2019 inviting application from eligible candidates for appointment in various posts. The petitioners aspire to be appointed as Mazdoor. The age limit prescribed in the recruitment notice is 18 years to 40 years. Both the petitioners have exceeded the age limit as prescribed for recruitment.

The petitioners pray for a direction upon the Raigunj Municipality to permit them to appear in the selection process along with other eligible candidates only in view of the fact that they are in service for more than 14 years.

The petitioners rely upon an order dated September 27, 2019 passed in WP No. 19007(W) of 2019 whereby a coordinate Bench of this Court permitted the petitioner therein to appear in the interview even though he had crossed the age bar. In the said order the Court took into consideration the decision of the larger Bench reported in 2013(1) CHN(Cal) 9, Gobinda Chandra Mondal vs Principal Rabindra Mahavidyalaya. The Court directed the Municipality to allow the petitioner to submit his application and participate in the selection process.

The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents submits that as the petitioners have crossed the maximum age limit, accordingly, they are not eligible to be appointed and/or participate in the selection process. It has been contended that as the recruitment rules do not permit relaxation of the age limit accordingly the petitioners ought not to be given permission to appear in the interview by virtue of the order of the Court.

The learned advocate representing the Municipality submits that they do not have any objection, if the Court passes an order permitting the petitioners to appear in the recruitment process along with other eligible candidates. The learned advocate however submits that in the event the petitioners are successful in the recruitment process, they will not be entitled to any service benefits for the past service rendered by them as causal workers of the Municipality.

After hearing the submission of all the parties, it appears that the petitioners were within the prescribed age when they were initially appointed. They are in service for a continuous period of more than 14 years.

The larger Bench in Gobinda Chandra Mondal (supra) laid down that if the appointment is made without undertaking selection procedure under Rule on ad hoc or temporary basis engaging the candidates having requisite qualification at the time of appointment against substantive post the candidates in those cases shall be allowed to compete and/or participate in the selection process along with other eligible candidates at the time of regular recruitment process condoning the age as they have acquired the right to be considered.

Relying upon the aforesaid principle laid down by the larger Bench the instant writ petition is disposed of by directing the Raiganj Municipality to allow the petitioners to appear in the recruitment process to be held for appointment of Mazdoor, along with other eligible candidates, by condoning their overage.

As regards the submission made by the leaned advocate for the Municipality regarding the terminal service benefits which will accrue in favour of the petitioners in case they are selected in the selection process is an absolute fresh cause of action, no way related to the instant writ petition and, accordingly, no order is passed with regard to the aforesaid submission. The same is not an issue to be decided in the instant writ petition. The parties shall be entitled to approach the appropriate forum as and when such a cause of action arises.

W.P. No. 175 (W) of 2020 is disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.