Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) Case as made out in the writ petition is that petitioner participated in a selection process for the posts of Warder in Dum Dum Correctional Home and being a successful candidate was included in the select list Respondents when were not giving appointment to the petitioner, he made representation and the petitioner was told by letter dated 11th February, 2003 that recruitment process for selection of the candidates for filling up the posts of Warder under the said home was abandoned by the appropriate authority. Petitioner approached the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal seeking direction for his appointment by virtue of such selection. The original application so filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the impugned order by the learned Tribunal holding that since selection process was abandoned by the appropriate authorities, petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
(2.) Mr. Saptangshu Basu, learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that after completion of a selection process, it is true that persons in the select list do not acquire a right of appointment but the authorities cannot withhold appointment or abandon selection process without disclosing any reason whatsoever. In support of such contention, Mr. Basu relied on the judgment in the case of R. S. Mittal v. Union of India reported in 1995 (Supp) 2 SCC 230 and contended that in the said judgment, the Apex Court has held there has to be a justifiable reason to decline to appoint a person who is on the select panel.
(3.) In such circumstances, we have considered the contentions of the petitioner as argued by Mr. Basu and the argument of Mr. Kargupta, the respondent and we find that admittedly the petitioner's prayer for appointment has been rejected by the learned Tribunal taking note of the fact that authorities have since abandoned the selection itself. We have also considered the taw as decided in the case of R. S. Mittal (supra) relied on behalf of the petitioner.;