STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs TUHIN SULTAN MALLICK .
Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH,A.M. KHANWILKAR
Case number: C.A. No.-000210-000210 / 2017
Diary number: 11329 / 2015
Advocates: CHANCHAL KUMAR GANGULI Vs
Page 1
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.210 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.11551 of 2015
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. ... APPELLANT(S)
VS.
TUHIN SULTAN MALLICK & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN,J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The respondents have complained of
nonimplementation, rather violation of order dated
26th June, 2009 passed by the West Bengal
Administrative Tribunal. The issue pertains to
appointment to the post of Lower Division Assistant.
In the order referred to above, it was held as
follows:
“So assessing the aforesaid undisputed position in these two applications (being No.OA3092 of 2007 as also OA3811 of 2008), we find that these 6 petitioners all are qualified to be considered for appointment to the aforesaid posts. The aforesaid position however has not been disputed from the side of the State respondents.
1
Page 2
Consequently, we direct the concerned State Respondent to issue orders for appointment in accordance with law for the aforesaid posts in favour of these 6 petitioners within a period of 15 days from the date of communication of this order after observing all necessary formalities.”
3. The operative portion of the order, no
doubt, contains a direction for appointment after
observing the required formalities. But the same has
to be understood in the background of the earlier
finding by the Tribunal that the writ
petitionersrespondents herein had been qualified to
be considered for appointment as Lower Division
Assistants. In other words, the Tribunal in the
order only intended that the writ petitioners had
become eligible for consideration for appointment as
Lower Division Assistants. It has come out on facts
that their turn had not arisen and before their turn
matured, the vacancies had already been filled up.
Therefore, there was no scope for any appointment.
It appears that the High Court missed this crucial
aspect and thus went wrong in issuing a direction for
appointment.
2
Page 3
4. In view of the above, we set aside the
impugned judgment of the High Court. The appeal is
accordingly allowed.
Pending application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
......................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]
.......................J. [A.M.KHANWILKAR]
New Delhi; January 6, 2017.
3
Page 4
4