Page 1

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 6748-6749   OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6177-6178 of 2012)

Buddhadeb Ruidas & ors. etc. etc. ...  Appellants

Versus

State of West Bengal and ors.      ...Respondents

With

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.  6750-6751  OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 23631-23632 of 2012)

With

CIVIL APPEAL No. 6752  OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21677 of 2013)

With

CIVIL APPEAL No.    6753  OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21679 of 2013)

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

Page 2

2. Regard  being  had to  the  similitude of  the  seminal  

issue that arises for consideration in all these appeals  

they were heard together and are disposed of by a  

common  judgment.   For  the  sake  of  clarity  and  

convenience  we  shall  state  the  facts  from  Civil  

Appeal  arising  out  of  SLP  (C)  Nos.  6177-6178  of  

2012) wherein the challenge is to the judgment and  

order dated 11.11.2011 in WPST Nos. 269 and 275 of  

2011 passed by the High Court of Calcutta.

3. The  factual  score  as  depicted  is  that  the  Deputy  

Secretary  (Rev.),  Irrigation  and  Waterways  

Directorate of the Government of West Bengal vide  

memo  No.  773-IE  dated  29.6.2006  directed  the  

Director of Personnel and Ex-Officio Chief Engineer,  

Irrigation and Waterways, to issue instructions to the  

Superintending Engineers of different circles to call  

for  names of  eligible  candidates  for  recruitment  to  

1446  group  ‘D’  posts  under  the  irrigation  and  

Waterways Directorate, Government of West Bengal.  

In pursuance of the said direction the departmental  

2

Page 3

authorities in accordance with Section 4 of the West  

Bengal  Regulation  of  Recruitment  in  State  

Government  Establishments  and  Establishments  of  

Public  Undertakings,  Statutory  Bodies,  Government  

Companies  and  Local  Authorities  Act,  1999  (for  

brevity ‘the Act’) requisitioned names from many an  

employment  exchange.   At  this  juncture,  many  

aspirants approached the West Bengal Administrative  

Tribunal (for short ‘the tribunal’) which permitted the  

applicants  therein  to  participate  in  the  selection  

process.  Eventually, 57,437 candidates took part in  

the  selection  process.   It  is  apt  to  note  here  that  

24520  candidates  were  sponsored  by  the  

employment  exchange.   After  following  due  

procedure a select list of the selected candidates was  

prepared and the same was published on 24.7.2010.

4. As the facts would unfurl, the respondents 4 and 5  

preferred O.A.  No.  454 of  2010 before the tribunal  

assailing the process of selection.  The tribunal by its  

order  dated 26.8.2010 declined to  pass  an interim  

order which was challenged before the High Court in  

3

Page 4

WPST No. 542 of 2010 wherein the High Court passed  

an  order  that  if  any  panel  had  already  been  

prepared, no effect should be given to such a panel  

and no appointment from the said panel should be  

given till  disposal  of  the original  application before  

the tribunal.  Thereafter, the tribunal by its judgment  

dated  30.8.2011,  after  hearing  the  applicants  and  

some of the selectees who were impleaded as parties  

and the State of West Bengal, came to hold that as  

the Department had not advertised the posts in the  

newspapers and the entire recruitment process had  

taken place by calling names from the employment  

exchange and hence, the selection was vitiated.  Be  

it noted, similar orders were passed by the tribunal at  

the  instance  of  other  applicants  in  other  original  

applications and all the aggrieved parties approached  

the High Court in different writ petitions.  The High  

Court  on  different  dates  disposing  of  the  writ  

petitions has concurred with the view expressed by  

the  tribunal  by  opining  that  the  plea  of  limitation  

raised before the tribunal  was sans substance and  

4

Page 5

the restricted selection by calling for names from the  

employment  exchange invites  the frown of  Articles  

14  and  16  of  the  Constitution  and,  accordingly,  

dismissed the writ petitions.  Being aggrieved by the  

aforesaid  orders,  the  present  appeals  have  been  

preferred by way of special leave.

5. We have heard Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned senior  

counsel,  and Mr.  Chanchal  Kumar  Ganguli,  learned  

counsel  for  the  appellants  and  Mr.  Kalyan  K.  

Bandopadhay, learned senior counsel for the State.  

Despite  notice,  no  one  has  appeared  for  the  

contesting respondents.

6. On a perusal of the orders passed by the tribunal and  

the  High  Court  it  is  evincible  that  on  a  singular  

ground,  namely,  there  was  no  advertisement  for  

direct recruitment the select list was quashed.  For  

arriving  at  the  said  conclusion  reliance  has  been  

placed on the authority in Excise Superintendent,  

Malkapatnam,  Krishna District,  A.P.  V.  K.B.N.  

Visweshwara Rao and others1.  The principle laid  

1 (1996) 6 SCC 216

5

Page 6

down  in  the  aforementioned  authority  has  been  

reiterated in Union Public Service Commission v.  

Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela and others2, National  

Fertilizers  Ltd.  and  others  v.  Somvir  Singh3,  

Nagendra  Chandra  and  others  v.  State  of  

Jharkhand  and  others4, State  of  Bihar  v.  

Upendra Narayan Singh and others5 and  State  

of Orissa and Anr. v. Mamata Mohanty6.   

7. There  cannot  be  any  dispute  with  regard  to  the  

aforesaid  proposition  of  law.   However,  Mr.  

Nageshwar  Rao,  learned  senior  counsel,  and  Mr.  

Chanchal  Kumar  Ganguli,  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellants  would  submit  that  the  obtaining  factual  

matrix exposits a different scenario altogether.  They  

would submit that Section 4 of the Act lays down a  

different  process  and  that  being  the  legislation  

operating in the field, it was obligatory on the part of  

the tribunal and the High Court to accept the stand  

put forth by the affected parties.  They would further  

2 (2006) 2 SCC 482 3 (2006) 5 SCC 493 4 (2008) 1 SCC 798 5 (2009) 5 SCC 65 6 (2011) 3 SCC 436

6

Page 7

contend  that  when  more  than  57000  candidates  

participated  in  the  selection  process,  it  should  not  

have been treated to be a selection restricted to the  

candidates sponsored by the employment exchange.

8. The  learned  counsel  for  the  State  supporting  the  

stand  of  the  appellants  submitted  that  the  

functionaries  of  the State  followed the mandate  of  

Section 4 and that is how names were called from the  

employment exchange and thereafter, at the district  

level wide publicity was given and also on the basis  

of the order passed by the tribunal several thousand  

candidates  appeared  and  regard  being  had  to  the  

totality of circumstances, it should have been treated  

as a fair selection and the High Court should not have  

concurred with the view expressed by the tribunal in  

quashing the panel, for the candidates were selected  

in  respect  of  group ‘D’  posts  and they come from  

absolutely poverty-stricken background.  The learned  

senior  counsel  would  further  apprise  us  that  vide  

memorandum  No.  101-EMP  dated  25.7.2008  the  

State  Government  has  already  directed  that  

7

Page 8

henceforth  all  appointing  authorities  in  the  State  

Government establishment and the establishments of  

Public  Undertakings  Statutory  Bodies,  Government  

companies and local authorities shall, in addition to  

obtaining  names  from  the  employment  exchange,  

give wide publicity to fill up vacancies in newspapers  

having wider circulation and display the vacancies on  

the  offices’  notice  boards  in  such  a  manner  as  to  

ensure reasonable opportunity of response from the  

eligible  candidates  for  due  consideration  of  their  

candidature in the recruitment process.  However, he  

would  contend  that  keeping  in  view  the  statutory  

provision,  names  were  called  from  employment  

exchange and when large number of candidates had  

appeared  in  the  selection  process,  it  was  not  

appropriate on the part of the tribunal and the High  

Court to set aside the same on at the behest of two  

applicants.   

9. At this stage we may profitably refer to Section 4 of  

the Act which reads as under: -

8

Page 9

“4. Vacancies  to  be  filled  up  by  persons   sponsored by employment exchange. - After the  commencement of this Act, all vacancies in the  posts  in  any  Government  establishment  or  establishment  of  any  public  undertaking,  statutory body,  Government  company or  local  authority shall be filled up by such persons as  may  be  sponsored  by  an  employment  exchange.”

10. Section 6 of the Act reads as follows: -

“6. Employment  exchange  to  submit  list  of   registrants  to  appointing  authority –  The  employment exchange shall,  on receipt of the  requisition  under  section  5,  submit  to  the  appointing authority a list of registrants, other  than  the  registrants  who  belong  to  the  exempted  category,  in  order  of  seniority  determined on the  basis  of  the  length  of  the  period  of  registration  in  that  employment  exchange and in accordance with such principle  of rotation as the Director of Employment may  prescribe  from  time  to  time,  and  also  in  conformity  with  the  qualification,  age,  experience  or  other  requirement,  if  any,  as  stated in the requisition.”

11. We have referred to the aforesaid provisions only to  

appreciate the statutory scheme.  The Act provides  

that  the  persons  are  to  be  selected  from  the  

candidates sponsored by the employment exchange.  

It  is  admitted by the learned counsel  for the State  

that on the basis of the statutory command names  

were called for from the employment exchange.  As  

9

Page 10

stated  earlier,  he  would  clarify  that  though  the  

names  were  called  for  from  the  employment  

exchange, the process of selection was not restricted  

to only the sponsored candidates.   In essence,  the  

submission of the learned counsel for the appellants  

and  the  learned  counsel  for  the  State  that  when  

thousands of candidates had appeared,  though not  

sponsored by the employment exchange, the panel  

prepared  after  following  due  procedure  should  not  

have been quashed.

12. There  can  be  no  scintilla  of  doubt  that  there  was  

requirement of advertisement for inviting the names.  

However, as we perceive, the present case projects a  

totally  different  picture.   The  number  of  posts  

available was 1446 in the group ‘D’ category.  For the  

said  posts  more than 57000 candidates  competed.  

On a querry being made, the learned counsel for the  

State would admit that the vacancies have not been  

filled up because of pendency of litigation.  Regard  

being had to the special features of the case, we are  

inclined to set aside the order of the High Court and  

1

Page 11

that of the tribunal and we so do.  We further direct  

the State Government to fill  up the posts available  

from among the select list.  We may hasten to clarify  

that if any one whose name features in the select list  

has  been  appointed  in  any  other  department  or  

statutory organization or  Government  company,  he  

cannot claim an appointment in the Department of  

Irrigation  and  Waterways.   We  further  direct  the  

respondent-State  and  its  functionaries  to  adjust  

respondents 1 and 2 and extend them the benefit of  

appointment.   The  appointees  cannot  claim  any  

seniority  with  retrospective  effect  as  that  might  

create  cavil  amongst  the  appointees  in  other  

departments at earlier point of time.  The aforesaid  

exercise shall be completed within a period of eight  

weeks from today.

13. The  appeals  are  disposed  of  in  above  terms.  

However, there is no order as to costs.

..............................................J.  [H.L. Dattu]

1

Page 12

..............................................J.  [Dipak Misra]

New Delhi; August 13, 2013

1