Disposed¶6

Sampa Naskar v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC26 Jul 2024RVW/9/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sampa Naskar; review application RVW 9 of 2024; MAT 1680 of 2023; CAN 3 of 2024; DPSC Howrah; the Council; Recruitment Process 2009 reconducted in 2012; Justice Rajasekhar Mantha; WPA 3268 of 2015; Sourav Naskar & Ors.; order dated 17 October 2023 modified; order dated 9 April 2024; appointments effective from issuance of appointment letters; no arrears; eligibility criteria; Soumen Sen J; Uday Kumar J; decided 26.07.2024.

What did the court decide?

Modification of the bench's order dated 17 October 2023; the petitioner is to be considered for appointment on the basis of the consensus recorded in paragraph 15 of the order dated 9 April 2024 (appointment as a successful empanelled candidate in the 2009 Recruitment Process reconducted in 2012 under Howrah DPSC, effective from issuance of appointment letters, without arrears). ¶6

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 17 October 2023 passed by this bench — resting on the instruction of learned counsel for DPSC, Howrah recorded in its paragraph 6 — should be reviewed and/or modified, the petitioner contending that the recorded submission was not the correct stand of DPSC, Howrah. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

The bench modified its order dated 17 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 9 April 2024, this instruction having been brought to light after the appeal was disposed of on the earlier understanding.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

Since DPSC, Howrah took the stand that the petitioners stand on the same footing, the petitioner is required to be considered in view of the changed stand taken by DPSC, Howrah.

¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review application RVW 9 of 2024 in MAT 1680 of 2023 with CAN 3 of 2024 — Sampa Naskar v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (bench of Soumen Sen, J. and Uday Kumar, J.; decided 26.07.2024). The petitioner sought review/modification of the bench's order dated 17 October 2023, which had been passed on the instruction of learned counsel for DPSC, Howrah recorded in its paragraph 6. Justice Rajasekhar Mantha (Single Judge) had meanwhile disposed of a batch of similarly placed writ petitions on 9 April 2024 — including WPA 3268 of 2015 (Sourav Naskar & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) — recording in paragraph 15 a consensus that writ petitions concerning the 2012 Recruitment Process filed until 31 March 2024 be entertained, entitling each petitioner to appointment as a successful empanelled candidate in the 2009 Recruitment Process reconducted in 2012 under Howrah DPSC, effective from issuance of appointment letters, without arrears, with service length and terminal benefits counted from the appointment-letter date. Respondent nos. 4 & 5 (the Council/DPSC Howrah) affirmed by affidavit their acceptance of and compliance with the 9 April 2024 order and undertook to act per any order passed, subject to fulfillment of all eligibility criteria. Holding the petitioners to stand on the same footing, the bench modified its 17 October 2023 order and directed consideration of the petitioner on the basis of the paragraph-15 consensus; the review application and CAN 3 of 2024 stand disposed of.

16 26.07.2024

Ct-29

RVW 9 of 2024 in MAT 1680 of 2023 with IA No. CAN 3 of 2024

¶5

Sampa Naskar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Sarwar Jahan Mr. Siddhartha Sarkar Mr. Maidul Islam Kayal

¶7

… For the Petitioner

¶8

Mr. Subir Sanyal Mr. Ratul Biswas

¶9

… For the Council

¶10

Mr. Indranil Roy, Govt. Adv. Mr. Tapas Kumar Mandal

¶11

… For the State

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

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. 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

¶16

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.”

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

(Soumen Sen, J.)

¶25

(Uday Kumar, J.)

¶26

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
The bench's own earlier order dated 17 October 2023 disposing of the appeal, which recorded the instruction of learned counsel for DPSC, Howrah in its paragraph 6 and which the petitioner asked to have reviewed and/or modified; modified by this judgment.¶2
This bench (same court) · 17th October, 2023
Prior proceeding
A batch of writ petitions filed by persons similarly placed was disposed of by Justice Rajasekhar Mantha on 9 April 2024, on the ground that although delay in approaching Court even against an apparent illegality negates a right to relief, it would be extremely onerous and unfair to cancel appointments made in 2012 after 12 years.¶2
Prior proceeding
Paragraph 15 of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha's order records a 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.¶2
Prior proceeding
Under the consensus, each petitioner in the said batch is entitled to appointment as a successful empanelled candidate in the Recruitment Process for the year 2009 reconducted in the year 2012 under the Howrah DPSC, with appointments effective from the date of issuance of appointment letters.¶2
Prior proceeding
Under the consensus, the appointees have no claim towards arrears since 2012 till date (monetary or notional), and length of service and terminal benefits are calculated from the date of issuance of the letters of appointment in terms of the order dated 9 April 2024.¶2
Prior proceeding
Respondent nos. 4 and 5 were directed by this bench to file an affidavit indicating their stand.¶4
Prior proceeding
In the affidavit, the Council recorded that it has accepted the order dated 09/04/2024 passed by 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 has taken all steps to comply with it.¶4
Prior proceeding
The Council further undertook in the affidavit to strictly act in terms of any order passed by this Court, subject to fulfillment of and compliance with all eligibility criteria.¶4

Sampa Naskar v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sampa 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

Sudeb 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.