Supreme Court: In a special leave petition (SLP), arising out of Calcutta High Court’s judgment and order dated 6 May 2025, whereby the petitioners were denied appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Stamp and Revenue Department of the State of West Bengal, despite being within the merit range, the Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurka, JJ., requested the State Government to take action to meet out such discrimination by appointing the petitioners and extending notional benefits.
The petitioners contended that despite being within the merit range, they were denied appointment, thereby giving rise to a plea of discrimination. In response, the State contended that after the decision of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 85720 of 2008, fresh appointments were made, increasing the total number of general category vacancies to 16. It was further stated that out of these 16 selected candidates, 3 candidates did not join service.
It is pertinent to note that the petitioners were placed at Serial Nos. 11 and 13 in the merit list, thereby falling within the zone of available vacancies.
The Court by order dated 23 March 2026 granted “last indulgence” of 1 week to the Respondent-State to file a counter affidavit specifying the allegations regarding appointments of Respondents 4, 5, and 6. It further directed that the officer concerned, well conversant with the case, to personally present on the next date, and warned that in case of default appropriate orders might be passed.
Upon consideration of the pleadings and the counter affidavit, the Court noted the State itself admitted that out of 16 selected candidates, 3 did not join, thereby leaving vacancies. It was noted that the petitioners, being placed at 11 and 13 ranks falls within the domain of vacancies for general category.
The Court observed that in light of the admitted facts, the plea of discrimination required redress and issued the following direction:
-
Requested the State Government to take action to meet out such discrimination by appointing the petitioners and extending notional benefits.
-
Directed to file a compliance report on or before the next date of hearing, i.e., 11 May 2026.
[Guruprosad Banerjee v. State of W.B., SLP (C) No. 19452/2025, decided on 2-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Ardhendhumauli Prasad, Sr. Adv., Mr. Swarnendu Chatterjee, AOR, Ms. Harshita Rawat, Adv., Mr. Siddhant Kumar, Adv. and Ms. Anusha Rathore, Adv., Counsel for the Petitioners
Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR, Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR, Mr. Swapnil Mukherjee, Adv., Ms. Argha Roy, Adv., Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR and Ms. Esha Thawal, Adv., Counsel for the Respondents
