Calcutta High Court: A petition was filed by the West Bengal Courts’ Employees’ Association challenging two recruitment notifications dated 28-02-2024, and 14-03-2024 pertaining to the engagement of staff on a contractual basis for Fast Track Courts and Family Courts in the District Judgeship of North and South 24-Parganas. Arindam Mukherjee, J., held that the recruitment notifications dated 28-02-2024, and 14-03-2024 cannot be allowed to be proceeded being contrary to West Bengal District Court (Constitution of Service, Recruitment, Appointment, Probation and Discipline of Employees) Rules, 2015. Thus, any engagement made in terms of these two notifications shall not create any equity in favour of the persons already engaged.
The Court remarked that “The State Government cannot remain a spectator and make contractual appointments with the plea to improve the situation continuously without conducting the regular recruitment process.”
The recruitment which forms part of the subject matter in the instant case was intended for positions such as English Steno-Typist, Bench Clerk (Peshkar), Bailiff, Peon, and Karmabandhu for a period of one year, renewable thereafter. The petitioners argued that under the West Bengal District Court (Constitution of Service, Recruitment, Appointment, Probation and Discipline of Employees) Rules, 2015, there is no provision for contractual engagements for these posts. Specifically, they contended that there are no sanctioned posts for “English Steno-Typist” as mentioned in the recruitment notifications, instead, the rules specify posts for Stenographer Grades I, II, and III, which are to be filled primarily through promotion and direct recruitment, not contractual engagement.
Similarly, for the posts of Bench Clerk, the 2015 Rules outline a promotional pathway and do not sanction the position of “Bench Clerk (Peshkar)” mentioned in the notifications. Counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that the post of “Karmabandhu” is not sanctioned under the said Rules. Consequently, they sought to quash the notifications and halt any further actions based on them.
Counsel for the respondents argued that the contractual engagements were necessary due to a severe shortage of staff, which had hampered the functioning of the District Judiciary. They contended that contractual appointments were a temporary measure to manage the situation until regular recruitment could be conducted. It was further noted that significant funds had been spent on contractual employees to maintain court operations.
Respondent 5 highlighted that the sanctioned strength of Group ‘D’ (Peon) staff in the District Judgeship of North 24-Parganas was severely depleted, necessitating immediate contractual hires. They also pointed out that a merit list for 64 candidates had already been published for these positions, and the petitioners’ delay in filing the writ petition suggested ulterior motives.
The Court acknowledged the acute staffing shortages but emphasized the importance of adhering to the established rules and procedures. It observed that the State had a duty to provide adequate infrastructural support to the judiciary, including proper staffing. The Court further criticized the State for not conducting regular recruitment processes over the years, which had led to the current crisis. It also pointed out that contractual engagements could not substitute the need for permanent staff, especially for sensitive positions such as Stenographers and Bench Clerks, which require accountability and responsibility.
The Court found merit in the petitioners’ submissions and held that the recruitment notifications dated 28-02-2024, and 14-03-2024, were contrary to the 2015 Rules. The notifications were quashed, and any further actions based on them were stayed. The Court directed that any engagements made under these notifications would not create any equity in favor of the individuals so engaged. The matter was scheduled for further scrutiny with instructions for the respondents to file affidavits detailing their stand.
[West Bengal Courts Employees Association v. State of West Bengal, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 7223, decided on 31-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Firdous Samim, Ms. Gopa Biswas, Ms. Payel Shome, Ms. Sampriti Saha, Mr. Avijit Kar, Advocates for the petitioners.
Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Mr. Deboprio Karan, Advocates for the State.
Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, Ms. Parna Roy Chowdhury, Advocates for respondent 5.
Mr. Saikat Banerjee, Ms. Juin Dutta Chakraborty, Advocates for High Court Administration.
