Disposed¶27

Sudeb Naskar v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC26 Jul 2024RVW/10/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review of Division Bench order dated 17.10.2023 in MAT 1681 of 2023; petitioner Sudeb Naskar; Howrah DPSC 2009 recruitment process reconducted in 2012; changed stand of DPSC, Howrah; consensus in para 15 of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha's order dated 09.04.2024 in WPA 3268 of 2015 (Sourav Naskar batch); earlier order modified; petitioner directed to be considered per consensus; review application and CAN 3 of 2024 disposed of; Soumen Sen and Uday Kumar, JJ.; 26.07.2024.

What did the court decide?

Review application and CAN 3 of 2024 disposed of; the order dated 17th October, 2023 was modified with a direction to consider the petitioner on the basis of the consensus made on behalf of DPSC, Howrah recorded in paragraph 15 of the order dated 9th April, 2024. ¶27

Sudeb Naskar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 17th October, 2023 passed by this bench should be reviewed and/or modified in view of the changed stand of DPSC, Howrah and the consensus recorded in paragraph 15 of the order dated 9th April, 2024.

¶21

Court's answer

Since DPSC, Howrah took the stand that the petitioners stand on the same footing, the petitioners were required to be considered in view of the changed stand taken by DPSC, Howrah, that instruction not having been brought to the bench's notice when the appeal was disposed of.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The bench modified its order dated 17th October, 2023 and directed consideration of the petitioner on the basis of the consensus made on behalf of DPSC, Howrah as recorded in paragraph 15 of the order dated 9th April, 2024.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Application (RVW 10 of 2024) in MAT 1681 of 2023 — Sudeb Naskar v. State of West Bengal & Ors. — The petitioner sought review/modification of this bench's order dated 17th October, 2023, submitting that the instruction of the DPSC counsel recorded in paragraph 6 thereof did not reflect the correct stand of DPSC, Howrah. Following the affidavit of respondent nos. 4 & 5 confirming that the Council accepted and complied with the order dated 09/04/2024 of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha in WPA 3268 of 2015 (batch disposal recording, at paragraph 15, a consensus that similarly placed petitioners in the 2012 Recruitment Process under Howrah DPSC be entertained until March 31, 2024 and appointed as successful empanelled candidates in the 2009 process reconducted in 2012, effective from issuance of appointment letters, without arrears), and upon DPSC, Howrah taking the stand that the petitioners stand on the same footing, the bench modified its order dated 17th October, 2023 and directed consideration of the petitioner on the basis of that consensus. The Review application and CAN 3 of 2024 were disposed of. (Soumen Sen and Uday Kumar, JJ.; decided 26.07.2024)

17 26.07.2024

Ct-29

RVW 10 of 2024 in MAT 1681 of 2023 with IA No. CAN 3 of 2024 Sudeb Naskar Vs.

¶5

State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Sarwar Jahan

¶7

Mr. Siddhartha Sarkar

¶8

Mr. Maidul Islam Kayal

¶9

… For the Petitioner

¶10

Mr. Subir Sanyal Mr. Ratul Biswas

¶11

… For the Council

¶12

Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick Mr. Avishek Prasad

¶13

Mr. Biman Halder

¶14

… For the State

¶15

1. The application for review and the application for appropriate order are taken up for consideration.

¶16

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the order dated 17^th October, 2023 passed by this bench a batch of writ petitions filed by persons similarly placed was disposed of by Justice Rajasekhar Mantha on 9^th April, 2024 on the ground that although the delay in approaching Court even against an apparent illegality, negates a right to relief. It would be extremely onerous and unfair to cancel the appointments made in the year 2012 after a period of 12 years, even if they are found to be improper. It appears from the paragraph 15 of His Lordship’s order that there

¶17

¶18

was consensus between the counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Howrah DPSC that all writ petitions in respect of the Recruitment Process of 2012 filed until March 31, 2024 shall be entertained. Each of the petitioners in the said writ petitions shall be entitled to appointments as successful empanelled candidates in the Recruitment Process for the year 2009 reconducted in the year 2012 under the Howrah DPSC and their appointments shall be effective from the date of issuance of appointment letters. They shall not have any claim towards any arrears since 2012 till date, either monetary or notional and the length of service and terminal benefit shall be calculated from the date of issuance of the letters of appointment to each of them in terms of the order dated 9^th April, 2024.

¶19

3. In the application it is contended by the petitioner that the submission made on behalf of the DPSC, Howrah recorded in paragraph 6 of the order may not be correct as in view of the fact that DPSC had agreed before the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioners in the said batch of writ petitions shall be entitled to appointment as successful empanelled candidates in the Recruitment Process for the year 2009 which was

¶20

¶21

conducted in the year 2012. The instruction of the learned counsel for the DPSC recorded in paragraph 6 of the order dated 17^th October, 2023 does not appear to be correct stand of DPSC, Howrah and on that basis the order passed earlier may be reviewed and/or modified.

¶22

4. We directed the respondent nos. 4 & 5 to file an affidavit indicating their stand. The relevant paragraphs of the said affidavit are reproduced below:“5. The Council has accepted the order dated 09/04/2024 passed by the Hon’ble Justice Rajasekhar Mantha in WPA 3268 of 2015 (Sourav Naskar & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) along with several other writ petitions and the Council has taken all steps to comply with the solemn order dated 09/04.2024 as aforesaid.

¶23

6.In view of such acceptance and compliance by the council as aforesaid, the answering respondent submits that the Council will strictly act in terms of the order which may be passed by this Hon’ble Court, however, subject to fulfillment of and compliance with all eligibility criteria by the appellant applications.”

¶24

5. In view of stand taken by DPSC, Howrah that the petitioners stand on the same footing, they are now required to be considered in view of the changed stand taken by DPSC, Howrah and the

¶25

¶26

fact that this instruction was not brought to our notice when we disposed of the appeal in which it was alleged that the process is irreversible, we modify our order dated 17^th October, 2023 and direct for consideration of the petitioner on the basis of consensus made on behalf of the DPSC, Howrah, as recorded in paragraph 15 of the order dated 9^th April, 2024.

¶27

6. On such consideration, the Review application and CAN 3 of 2024 stand disposed of.

¶28

(Soumen Sen, J.)

¶29

(Uday Kumar, J.)

¶30

Sudeb Naskar v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudeb Naskar v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mithu Sikder @ Mithu Adhikary Sikder Vs the State of West Bengal

Tapan Karmakar Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Indrajit Banerjee Vs the State of West Bengal

Sampa Naskar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Pankaj Kora Vs Samirtan Dutta the Chairman Cum Managing Director Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Ors.

W.B. Kerosene Agents Welfare Association Vs Pankaj Jain Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Gov. of India and Anr.