Disposed

State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Santanu Basu

Calcutta HC3 Nov 2022MAT/1053/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of an appeal challenging a Single Bench order that directed the West Bengal College Service Commission to disclose recruitment details. The Court held that the In Re: Angesh Kumar judgment does not apply as the Court's plenary jurisdiction allows it to order disclosure in the interest of adjudication without such limitations.

What did the court decide?

Disposed by directing production of Report on Affidavit in sealed cover to the Single Bench for decision on circulation.

State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs Santanu Basu — Service and Employment | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

03.11.2022 Item No.176 Crt. No.11. MAT 1053 of 2022 KB with IA No. CAN 1 of 2022

¶2

The West Bengal College Service Commission and Ors. Versus Santanu Basu

¶3

Mr. Kishore Datta

¶4

Mr. Subhrangsu Panda Ms. Ina Bhattacharyya Ms. Mithu Singha Mahapatra …. For the Appellants.

¶5

Mr. Subrata Mukhopadhyay

¶6

Mr. Subhajit Das

¶7

…. For the Respondent.

¶8

Party/parties is/are represented in the order of their

¶9

name/names as printed above in the cause title.

¶10

Mr. Panda, Learned Counsel appears for the appellants/West Bengal College Service Commission (for short the Commission), led by Mr. Kishore Datta, Learned Senior Counsel.

¶11

For the Respondent/Writ Petitioner, Mr. Mukhopadhyay, Learned Counsel, appears.

¶12

The challenge in this appeal is to the Order of the Hon’ble Single Bench dated 23^rd June, 2022 in the Writ Petition, being WPA 4693 of 2020, with its connected application.

¶13

The Hon’ble Single Bench was considering a challenge to the procedure for recruitment of Librarians

¶14

¶15

in different State Government aided Colleges by the Commission in terms of an advertisement published to such effect.

¶16

The Writ Petitioner was aggrieved by the fact that the selection process lacked transparency and since the appointments relate to a public office, the onus is upon the Commission, which is ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, to act without blemish.

¶17

Being prima facie satisfied with the stand taken by the Writ Petitioner, the Hon’ble Single Bench framed six questions to be answered in the form of a Report on Affidavit by the Commission on the next date.

¶18

The six questions relate to the disclosure of the process and allotment of marks by the Commission while conducting the recruitment exercise. Details of the six questions appear more fully in the Order of the Hon’ble Single Bench dated 23^rd June, 2022.

¶19

Mr. Panda, Learned Counsel, raises the argument that under the Rules of the Commission there is no provision for disclosure of particulars as directed by the Hon’ble Single Bench.

¶20

It is submitted on the strength of the Judgement In Re: Angesh Kumar and Others reported in (2018) 4 SCC Page 530 that a third party such as the Writ Petitioner does not have an automatic right to claim information.

¶21

¶22

It is submitted that unless and until sufficient cause is made out in public interest, In Re: Angesh Kumar & Ors. stipulates that disclosure of all information such as raw marks - in that case by UPSC - is not obligatory on the part of the Recruiting Authority.

¶23

Mr. Mukhopadhyay, Learned Counsel, reiterates the points already taken in the Writ Petition and recorded by the Hon’ble Single Bench of lack of transparency in a recruitment for appointment to a public office.

¶24

Having closely heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court finds that the argument In Re: Angesh Kumar fails to appreciably apply in the facts of this case, considering the fact that the requirement of disclosure is by the Court itself in exercise of its extraordinary inherent jurisdiction and in course of a hearing on a related issue of appointments to public office.

¶25

In the considered view of this Court, irrespective of any lack of compulsion to disclose under the RTI Act qua a private party, as legally provided, the Hon’ble Court does not suffer from the same limitations in exercise of its plenary jurisdiction.

¶26

Accordingly, the Report on Affidavit shall be produced before the Hon’ble Single Bench initially in sealed cover. The Hon’ble Single Bench shall then decide

¶27

¶28

on the issue of circulation of the said Report keeping in view the ends of complete adjudication.

¶29

In the light of the above observations and directions, both MAT 1053 of 2022 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2022 stand disposed of .

¶30

Since affidavits are not invited, all other allegations are deemed to be denied and disputed.

¶31

All parties to act in terms of a copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶32

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities.

¶33

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.) (Subrata Talukdar, J.)

State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Santanu Basu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Santanu Basu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bipad Kumar Mondal and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Mcpi Private Limited and Anr.

Binoy Kumar Mondal Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Monami Prodhan Pramanik Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Anjan Majumdar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

The Head Mistress , Joka Bratachari Vidyashram, Girls High School , and Ors. Vs Uma Acharya and Ors.