Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This mandamus appeal is at the instance of the writ petitioners and is directed against the order dated 1st August, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 2575 of 2003 thereby rejecting the said writ application.
(2.) The appellants, six in number, filed a writ application before a learned Judge of this Court thereby praying for revocation and/or cancellation of the panel prepared from amongst the Upper Division Assistants having LL.B. Degree for the selection to the post of Stamp Reporter/Additional Stamp Reporter on the allegation that the decision of preparation of such panel is inconsistent with the relevant provision of the rules framed by this Court in this regard. The appellants have further prayed for passing an order of prohibition thereby restraining the respondents from giving effect to the said panel barring respondent No. 5 alone, who, according to the appellants, was rightly selected.
(3.) The case made out by the appellants may be summed up thus: (a) The appellants were all working as Upper Division Assistants at the different Departments/Sections in the Appellate Side of this Court. By a notice dated 8th July, 2002 issued by the Deputy Registrar, Appellate Side (Administration), applications were invited from the employees having LL.B. Degree and working in the post of Upper Division Assistant and above, to appear at the oral test for preparation of a panel for filling up the existing as well as future vacancies in the posts of Stamp Reporter/Additional Stamp Reporter in the Appellate Side of this Court. (b) All the writ petitioners, being Upper Division Assistants and having LL.B. Degree, applied in response to the said notice dated 8th July, 2002 and consequently, the Deputy Registrar, Appellate Side (Administration), issued notice dated July 22, 2002 requesting twelve persons altogether including the petitioners to appear in the said oral test scheduled to be held on 30th July, 2002. (c) Pursuant to such notices dated 8th July, 2002 and 22nd July, 2002, the petitioners appeared at the said Oral Test with other candidates. According to the petitioners, although, the notice dated 22nd July, 2002 contained names of total twelve candidates, an additional candidate being one Pushpendu Chanda was invited for the oral test. (d) The oral test was conducted by a committee consisting of the learned Registrar General and the learned Registrar (Administration), and out of the thirteen candidates, four were selected and empanelled for the posts. All the writ petitioners, however, failed to find place in the said panel. (e) The preparation of panel for the post of existing and future vacancies of Stamp Reporter/ Additional Stamp Reporter was wholly unwarranted and illegal and the same was in conflict with the Rule 9 of the Calcutta High Court Service (Appellate Side) Categorisation of Posts, Channel of Promotion and Principles of Seniority Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "1986 rules") which provides that the requisite qualification for the post of Stamp Reporter should be LL.B. Degree and in the event of no qualified person being available in the feeder posts, the seniormost person in the Upper Division Assistant category having LL.B. Degree should be considered for appointment. (f) Although, selection of Sri Dilip Kumar Banerjee, the seniormost Upper Division Assistant for the promotion to the post was in conformity with the relevant 1986 rules, the three other candidates empanelled, namely, the respondent Nos. 6, 8 and 9 could not be empanelled ignoring the 1986 rules in supersession of other eligible senior candidates. According to the said rules, if no suitable candidate is available from the feeder posts, the seniormost Upper Division Assistant having LL.B. Degree should be promoted to the post of Stamp Reporter/Additional Stamp Reporter and in view of such specific provision, there was no justification of preparation of any panel consisting of the persons who are not the "seniormost Upper Division Assistant having LL. B. Degree". (g) The preparation of such panel itself would mean and result in deprivation of the scope of promotion of the petitioners, even though, they are senior in service in comparison to the last three empanelled candidates. (h) Some of the petitioners, namely, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were due to be promoted shortly to the feeder post of Superintendent and if the purported panel was allowed to continue and kept alive for promotion to the post of Stamp Reporter/Additional Stamp Reporter in future, not only would it tend to create an inevitable administrative complications but the same would be unfair and illegal being violative of the Rule 9 of the 1986 rules.;