- (1.) This petition filed by the then Minister, Public Works Department, Government of West Bengal and three officers, i.e., the Chief Secretary of the State, the Principal Secretary and the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department questioning the direction given by the Division Bench of the High Court for implementation of order dated 12.09.1997 passed in W.P.S.T. No. 169 of 1997 is a piece of frivolous litigation which ought to have been dismissed at the threshold. However, as the Court had entertained the special leave petition, we proceed to decide the same on merits. Santanu Mitra and Ors. who had applied for the post IVth Grade Clerks, in Public Works (Roads) Department, West Bengal and whose names were recommended by the Selection Committee filed OA No. 183/1996 before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') with the complaint that instead of appointing them as per their placement in the merit list, the Department made appointments by adopting the pick and choose method. They also alleged that the merit list had been violated on account of undue interference by the Minister-in-charge, Public Works (Roads).
(2.) By an order dated 29.4.1997, the Tribunal allowed the application and directed the concerned authorities to make appointments strictly as per the merit list.
(3.) The State Government and its functionaries challenged the order of the Tribunal in WPST No. 169/1997. The same was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 12.9.1997, the relevant portions of which are extracted below: Accordingly, we are clear of the view that the decision of the successor Minister in-charge of the Public Works Departments is arbitrary and illegal and that in the facts and circumstances of the case in view of the principle laid down by the privy Council in the case of H.F. Baiviachari v. Secretary of State for India in Council is binding upon the successor in office of the Minister concerned and the Minister concerned should not take a contrary view when the candidates appeared and they have acquired a right. In this connection the Supreme Court in the case of Shankaran Dash v. Union of India, 1991 AIR(SC) 1612 held that it cannot be said that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be denied. Of course keeping the name in the panel does not automatically offer to get employment. But in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court the state Government cannot make any discrimination for favourtism in the matter of giving employment that the departmental candidates should get employment and the candidates whose names were sponsored by the employment should go out of consideration and the successor in office should not take a contrary view. Accordingly there is no scope for acting in such an arbitrary manner. Accordingly we are of the view that the view taken by the learned Tribunal was justified and we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision taken by the learned Tribunal. In terms of the order the Tribunal the offer of appointment should be given to the candidates on the basis of the merit list within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.;