Calcutta High Court: In a petition preferred by 32 petitioners challenging the termination of their services by the Director of Local Bodies and the Commissioner, Urban Development and Municipal Affairs Department, without a hearing or providing reasons, a single-judge bench comprising of Amrita Sinha,* J., while noting the timeline of the recruitment process, highlighting the speed of events, held that the recruitment process was marred by illegalities, supporting respondent’s decision to cancel it.
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, the petitioners applied for ‘peon’ and ‘mazdoor’ positions in response to an advertisement by the Hooghly-Chinsurah Municipality in January 2020. The selection process was conducted, and the Director of Local Bodies approved the appointment of 74 candidates, including the petitioners, in March 2020. The petitioners received appointment letters, joined their posts in March 2020, and were paid for their services. However, on 03-07-2020, their appointments were terminated without following proper procedures and without disclosing any reasons.
Aggrieved by the termination of their services by the Director of Local Bodies and the Commissioner, Urban Development and Municipal Affairs Department, without a hearing or providing reasons, the petitioners preferred the present petition challenged the same.
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioners contended that their termination was unlawful, lacked authority, and violated principles of natural justice. It was contended that the selection process was conducted as per rules, and appointments were duly approved by the Director of Local Bodies. It was contended that the alleged termination was at the dictate of the Minister, not involved in the recruitment process. It was further contended that no opportunity was given for petitioners to participate in the enquiry process.
The respondent contented that the complaints received about illegal recruitment led to an enquiry by the Minister in-charge and later procedural lapses were found, including faulty selection committee procedures and non-compliance with recruitment rules. It was contended that the Minister after enquiry approved the cancellation of the entire recruitment process, leading to termination.
Court’s Observations
The Court considered the entire timeline of the recruitment process, finding it suspiciously fast-paced. The Court noted the procedural lapses, including discrepancies in the written exam, absence of candidates in the written examination and hasty completion of the entire process. The Court found the entire recruitment process conducted in haste, leading to doubts about fairness and transparency.
The Court rejected the petitioners’ reliance on the Governor’s approval for permanent status in light of the cancellation of the entire recruitment process. The Court considered the Minister’s role as a whistleblower based on complaints from Councillors, justifying the initiation of an inquiry.
“…the role of the Minister has to be taken as whistle blower and the trigger was the complaint filed by the councillors in response to which the Minister flung into action. It is only after enquiry was conducted that the illegality was unearthed. Had the curtain behind which the unlawful activity took place not been lifted then the illegality would have been perpetrated and the illegal recruitment would have passed on as a legal one.”
The Court held that the recruitment process lacked transparency, was marred by illegalities, and demonstrated signs of favoritism and nepotism. The Court dismissed the writ petition, refraining from intervening, and upheld the cancellation of the recruitment process.
“There isn’t any iota of doubt in the mind of the Court that the recruitment process was far from being fair and transparent. On the contrary, it appears to be marred by illegalities galore. The stand of the Municipality also raises genuine doubts in the mind of the Court with regard to the fairness in the process.”
Court’s Decision
While refraining from exercising jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasising the lack of fairness and transparency in the recruitment process, and supported the cancellation decision due to identified procedural lapses. The Court disposed of all connected applications.
[Animesh Roy v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 5132, order dated 15-12-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Amrita Sinha
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Saptansu Basu, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Mr. Arindam Chatterjee, Ms. Debosree Dhamali, Ms. Ria Ghosh, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Samim Ahammed, Mr. Arka Maiti, Ms. Saloni Bhayyacharya, Mr. Arka Ranjan Bhattachaya, Counsel for the Intervenors
Mr. Tapas Kumar Ghosh, Mr. Tanmay Chowdhury, Counsel for the Respondent 3 to 5
