Susama Roy Pramanik and Others vs State of West Bengal and Others

Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.—Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the respondent No. 8. Affidavit filed today in Court be kept on record. This appeal has been preferred from the judgment and order dated 5th September, 2012 whereby and whereunder a learned Judge of this Court was pleased to dismiss the writ petition without granting any relief to the appellants herein.

The appellants herein participated in the selection process for the post of workers and were also empanelled for appointment. The panel was prepared on 16th June, 2007. The life of the panel was for a period of two years only. After the expiry of the initial period of two years, life of the said panel was again extended for a further period of one year by the written communication dated 27th November, 2009 issued by the O.S.D. & Ex-Officio Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Department of Women & Child Development and Social Welfare.

During the extended period of the life of the panel in question, a legal proceeding was initiated before this court on behalf of the appellants herein. The learned Single Judge, however, refused to grant any relief to the appellants herein only on the ground that the life of the panel in question had expired.

This Court specifically held in the case of Prabir Sinha Roy & Ors. v. The Hon''ble The Chief Justice, High Court, Calcutta & Ors. reported in 1996 (II) CHN 497 that the claim of the empanelled candidates cannot be defeated on the ground that the validity of the panel expired during the pendency of the litigation. In the aforesaid decision, this Court also held that the candidates will have a right to be considered for appointments to the vacant posts in question which occurred before the expiry of the validity period of the panel.

Subsequently, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Ram Sawrup Saroj, specifically held that the relief cannot be refused on the ground of expiry of the life of the panel during the pendency of the litigation. The relevant extracts from the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court are set out hereunder:

10.. Merely because a period of one year has elapsed during the pendency of litigation, we cannot decline to grant the relief to which the respondent has been found entitled to by the High Court....

In the present case, the learned Advocate representing the State-respondents on instruction submits that the scheme in question is still operative where the workers could be appointed from the panel in question although the life of the said panel expired during the pendency of the legal proceedings before this Court.

Following the decisions of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that the claim of the appellants herein should be considered for appointment to the vacant posts of worker since the said claim cannot be refused on the ground that the life of the panel expired during the pendency of the legal proceedings.

We are, therefore, unable to approve the decision of the learned single Judge and the same is accordingly, set aside.

The respondent authorities herein are directed to consider the claim of the appellants for appointment to the posts of workers against the vacancies which occurred during the validity period of the panel in question i.e. on or before 15th June, 2010 without any further delay but positively within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal stands allowed.

In the facts of the present case, there will be no order as to costs. Let Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties as early as possible.