- (1.) The Petitioner had passed Madhyamik Pariksha (Secondary Examination) in the year 1986. In the said year he registered his name with the District Employment Exchange, Burdwan which was renewed from time to time. Thereafter, he passed Higher Secondary Examination. Subsequently he graduated with (Honours) in B.Com. He also obtained Diploma in Computer Science. He had completed courses and obtained certificates in Financial Accounting, Hardware and Networking and Business Management and had undergone training in ISO 9000 and Total Quality Management conducted by the Small Scale Industry Service Institute, Government of West Bengal. From time to time the Employment Exchange was informed about the enhancement of his educational qualifications. Facts are that in the Satischandra Industrial Centre, the Respondent No. 2 (for short 'the Institute'), there arose a vacancy for the post of Clerk (Cashier), a Group-C post. Accordingly, on 9th November, 2006 the Superintendent of the institute had sent a requisition to the Employment Officer, District Employment Exchange, Burdwan, the Respondent No. 3 for sponsoring the names of the candidates for the said post. Subsequently, the Respondent No. 3 had forwarded the names of 20 candidates including that of the Petitioner. It has been stated that before sponsoring the names of the candidates, the candidates were required to sign a register in the office of the District Employment Exchange stating their willingness to offer themselves as a candidate for the said post. On 4th January, 2007 the Petitioner signed the register which was endorsed on his identity card. Thereafter, as there was no communication regarding appointment, he contacted the Respondent No. 3, who informed that he had nothing to do further in the matter. Subsequently, a representative of the institute informed him verbally that delay occurred because clarifications with regard to the recruitment process were required to be obtained by the selection committee of the Institute. It has been stated that when the name of the Petitioner was forwarded by the Respondent No. 3, he was informed by the Employment Exchange that as he was 37 years of age, it was his last call. Finding no other alternative, as the Petitioner would cross the age limit for recruitment to the post, he accepted the offer. Thereafter, as the Respondent No. 2 allegedly did not take any step for completing the recruitment process, in this writ petition such inaction of the Respondent No. 2 has been challenged. Accordingly, prayer has been made to complete the recruitment process already initiated.
(2.) The matter was moved on 19th August, 2009. Thereafter, on 26th August, 2009 after hearing the learned Advocates for the parties an interim order in terms of prayer 'd' was passed. On 11th September, 2009 directions were issued for filing of affidavits and interim order was extended. Accordingly, affidavits have been exchanged.
(3.) Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner relying on the statements in the writ petition submitted that before issuing the administrative approval, the memo dated 27th November, 2003 stipulated for obtaining prior approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet for filling up the vacant posts. Therefore, as soon as the Appoinments Committee of the Cabinet had granted the required approval, the process of recruitment had started. The memo dated 6th November, 2006 issued by the Director of Industrial Training, the Respondent No. 4, to fill up the post at the institute was pursuant to the approval granted by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. It indicated that the process of recruitment had commenced. Consequently, the Secretary of Institute on 9th November, 2006 had sent a requisition to the Respondent No. 3 requesting the Exchange to send the names. Thereafter, on 9th January, 2007 the Respondent No. 3. had sent the names of the candidates including that of the Petitioner. However, in the meantime by a memo dated 19th December, 2006, the Respondent No. 4 had issued a circular to stop the process of appointment. Subsequently by memo dated 28th December, 2006 the said Respondent had requested the Superintendent of the institute to suspend temporarily the appointment procedure until new recruitment rules were framed. Submission was the recruitment process commenced with the required approval of. the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet. Stoppage and suspension of the recruitment process, as evident from the memo and circular dated 19th December, 2006 and 28th December, 2006 mean stopping a process which was already initiated. Besides the new recruitment guidelines as contained in the memorandum dated 17th August, 2010 are prospective in nature. Since the Institute had initiated the recruitment process in terms of the recruitment guidelines or rules as existing in the month of November, 2006 by sending requisition to the Respondent No. 3 and as the Respondent No. 3 forwarded the names of twenty candidates including the name of the Petitioner in January, 2007 and as, thereafter, the Respondent No. 2 did not take steps for completing the recruitment process, the inaction is uncalled for. Relying on the Judgment in Gopal Sha and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.,2010 1 WbLR 483 , submission was as the process of recruitment had started, the Petitioner cannot be subjected to the new recruitment guidelines framed on 17th August, 2010. Moreover, the new guidelines are prospective in nature. Besides, in view of the unreported Judgment in MAT 592 of 2002 with CAN 4147 of 2010 the Secretary of the Managing Committee, Kalinagar Girls' High School, Nadia v. Archana Ghosh (Saha) and Ors. wherein it has been held that the decision in Snehansu Jash v. State of West Bengal,2001 3 CLT 155 , does not operate as a binding precedent, as the vacancy arose in the year 2003, recruitment rules prevalent on the date of occurrence of vacancy are applicable.;