Dismissed¶31

Biswajit Chakraborty v. Union of India & Ors.

Calcutta HC6 Feb 2024WPA/14919/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Constable/Bugler recruitment CRPF West Bengal; general category merit list irregularities; ward of CRPF personnel eligibility; departmental candidate NOC; OBC candidates included in general category list; reserved category relaxations; zone of consideration; 8 general category vacancies; petitioner ranked 13th; dismissal of writ petition; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition failed and was dismissed, with no order as to costs. ¶31

Biswajit Chakraborty Vs Union of India & Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition failed and was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the inclusion of candidates at serial nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 of the general category merit list involved irregularities having the effect of vitiating the selection process for Constable/Bugler (general category, State of West Bengal). +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

Insofar as the candidate at serial no.1 is concerned, the advertisement made no provision for a ward of a CRPF personnel to participate in the selection process, and the respondents' contention to the contrary was not accepted.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Insofar as the candidate at serial no.2 is concerned, who was admittedly domiciled out of the State of West Bengal, the contention that he could validly participate as a departmental nominee on the basis of a NOC issued by the department was rejected, as the advertisement does not provide for such reservations for departmental candidates.

¶26

Key takeaways

There was nothing on record to establish that the candidates at serial nos. 6 and 7 had participated as general category candidates; the list of candidates provisionally selected identifies them as belonging to the OBC category.ratio¶27
Once a candidate avails of the relaxations available to a reserved category candidate, he/she can no longer be regarded as a general category candidate.ratio¶27
Even if the candidates at serial nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 are discounted, the petitioner, placed at serial no.13, would at best move up to serial no.9; with only 8 vacancies under the general category, his candidature remains outside the zone of consideration.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, Appellate Side), WPA 14919 of 2013, decided 6th February, 2024 by Raja Basu Chowdhury, J. Writ petition challenging the CRPF selection process for recruitment of Constable/Bugler for the State of West Bengal dismissed. The court found irregularities in the provisional general category merit list: the advertisement made no provision for participation of a ward of a CRPF personnel (serial no.1); it provided no reservation for departmental candidates relying on a departmental NOC, the serial no.2 candidate being domiciled out of West Bengal; and the candidates at serial nos. 6 and 7, identified in the list of provisionally selected candidates as OBC, could no longer be regarded as general category candidates once reserved category relaxations were availed. Nevertheless, even after discounting all four, the petitioner placed 13th would at best reach serial no.9 against only 8 general category vacancies, leaving him outside the zone of consideration; the selection being completed long back, no relief was granted and the petition was dismissed without costs.

¶1

Form No.J(2)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

Present:

¶4

The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury

¶5

WPA 14919 of 2013

¶6

Biswajit Chakraborty Versus

¶7

Union of India & Ors.

¶8

For the petitioner : Mr. K.B.S. Mahapatra Mr. Kashinath Bhattacharya For the respondents : Ms. Chandreyi Alam Heard on : 6^th February, 2024 Judgment on : 6^th February, 2024.

¶9

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J:

¶10

Challenging a selection process initiated by the respondents, pursuant to an advertisement in connection with the recruitment of Constable/Bugler in the State of West Bengal, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶11

Mr. Mahapatra, learned advocate representing the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to the advertisement submits that the same invites application in prescribed format from male/female, Indian Citizens who are ordinarily resident of the States of West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Orissa,

¶12

¶13

Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. It is submitted that the advertisement reserves the number of vacancies in different categories to be filled up for different states. In respect of the State of West Bengal for the rank/trade of Constable/Bugler there were in total 18 vacancies out of which 8 vacancies were earmarked for the general category.

¶14

It is submitted that the petitioner had not only applied for the said post but is also otherwise eligible for being recruited since his name appeared in the merit list. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the petitioner was ultimately not selected.

¶15

By referring to page 33 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the candidates in serial nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 of the merit list despite being otherwise ineligible to participate as general category candidates, their names had been included in the merit list of general category candidates. It is still further submitted that although, the candidate in serial no. 1 is a general category candidate, he is not domiciled in the State of West Bengal and as such he could not have been selected for the post of Constable/Bugler under the category reserved for the State of West Bengal. It is submitted that there are irregularities in the selection process and the aforesaid irregularities have the effect of vitiating the same.

¶16

Pursuant to the order dated 7^th June, 2013 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the learned advocate for the respondents had made over the list of selected candidates to the

¶17

¶18

petitioner. Pursuant to and in furtherance thereof, the aforesaid persons whose names featured in the serial nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 of the merit list under general category have been arrayed as added respondents to the present proceedings. Mr. Mahapatra submits that the appointments of the aforesaid persons are bad and this Court by setting aside their appointments should direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the concerned post of Constable/Bugler.

¶19

Ms. Alam, learned advocate representing the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner had participated in the selection process and he was placed 13^th in the merit list of general category candidates for the State of West Bengal. The petitioner had applied as a general category candidate and as such cannot question the legality and/or validity of other candidates who do not come under the general category. She submits that insofar as candidates in serial nos. 6 and 7 of the merit list are concerned, such candidates had participated in the selection process under general category, despite being candidates under reserved category. As such they have been included in the merit list for general category. Insofar as the candidate in serial no.1 is concerned, she submits that he is ward of a CRPF personnel and is otherwise eligible to participate in the selection process on the basis of the address of his father. Insofar as candidate in serial no.2 is concerned, he is a departmental candidate and as such he is entitled to participate

¶20

¶21

since, he had obtained a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the department. Having regard to the aforesaid, it is submitted that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for consideration of his candidature. There is no irregularity on the part of the respondents in concluding the selection process by excluding the petitioner from the zone of consideration since, he has been placed in serial no.13 of the merit list under the general category.

¶22

Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Admittedly, it is noticed that an advertisement was published for selecting the candidates under different categories in respect of various States by the office of the Inspector General of Police, Central Sector, CRPF, TC-32/V Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lukhnow. The said selection process also reserved vacancies for the State of West Bengal as well. As noted above, the present petition is confined to the selection process of Constable/Bugler under general category for the State of West Bengal. I find that the petitioner raises objection to the provisional list candidates under serial nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 on the grounds noted hereinabove, who were selected for the post of constable during the recruitment conducted at Siliguri, Darjeeling.

¶23

Insofar as serial no.1 is concerned although, Ms. Alam, learned advocate representing the respondents, has tried to impress upon this Court that the said candidate being a ward of a CRPF personnel was otherwise eligible to participate in the selection

¶24

¶25

process, I, however, find from the advertisement that no such provision had been made in respect of ward of CRPF personnel.

¶26

Insofar as serial no.2 is concerned, admittedly, the said candidate was domiciled out of State of West Bengal. Although, Ms. Alam has submitted that since, the candidate in serial no.2 was a departmental nominee and had participated in the selection process on the basis of NOC issued by the department and there cannot be any irregularity in selecting him, I am afraid and am unable to accept such contention, since the advertisement does not provide for such reservations for departmental candidates.

¶27

Insofar as candidates in serial nos. 6 and 7 of the provisional list is concerned, although, it is submitted by Ms. Alam that such candidates had participated as general category candidates despite being reserved category candidates, there is nothing on record to establish such fact. I, however, notice from the list of candidates provisionally selected for the concerned post of Constables categorically identifies the candidates under serial nos. 6 and 7 to be under OBC category. Once, a candidate avails of the relaxations as available to a reserved category candidate, he/she can no longer be regarded as a general category candidate. Interestingly, however, from the aforesaid list of the candidates disclosed by the respondents which is at page 18 of the affidavit-in-opposition as identified by Ms. Alam, the petitioner is placed under serial no.13 under the general category. Even if the aforesaid candidates under

¶28

¶29

serial nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 are discounted, the petitioner does not come within the zone of consideration for being selected to the rank of Constable/Bugler under general category for the State of West Bengal, as in such case he would at best be placed in serial no.9. There being only 8 vacancies under general category, his case would, thus, remain outside the zone of consideration.

¶30

Having regard thereto, and since, the selection process had been completed long back, I am of the view that the petitioner, at this stage, cannot be entitled to any relief especially when the petitioner does not come within the zone of consideration.

¶31

Since, no other point has been canvassed and all issues have already been decided, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶32

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.

¶34

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)

¶35

sb.

Biswajit Chakraborty v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biswajit Chakraborty v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sankar Mandal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Tapan Kumar Mondal Vs Calcutta Port Trust & Ors.

Sujit Tikader Vs Union of India & Ors.

Pijush Paul Vs C S T C & Ors.

Monoranjan Saha Vs Smt. Rubi Santra

Partha Pratim Bhunia Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.