NISHITA MHATRE,J. - (1.) The appellants are the State Government and its officers who deal with the committees constituted under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the West Bengal Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2009. The Respondent No.1 who was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was aggrieved because he was not appointed to the District Juvenile Justice Board although his name figured in the original panel prepared for selection of the social worker associated with the committee. Respondent No.2 is the Union of India. Respondent No.3 is the Superintendent of Police. Respondent No.4 is the person who was appointed to the aforesaid District Juvenile Justice Board although his name was not on the select list and he was the last wait -listed candidate. Respondent No.5 is the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Birbhum.
(2.) An advertisement was issued on 5th November, 2014 inviting applications from eligible persons for the posts under the Juvenile Justice Board (hereinafter referred to as "JJB") and Child Welfare Committee (hereinafter referred to as "CWC"), Birbhum. The tenure was for a period of 3 years. Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 applied for the post of social worker to be associated with the JJB. They underwent a selection process. A merit list was prepared on 31st December, 2014. Respondent No.1 was second in the merit list. He and another person were found suitable for being selected to the post of social workers for the JJB. Respondent No.4 Atanu Kumar Dutta was the 5th person in the waiting list prepared on the same day. However, on 9th March, 2015 a notification was issued by the Government of West Bengal declaring the names of the persons who would constitute the JJB for the District of Birbhum for 3 years. The Principal Magistrate was the principal officer of the Board. Saswati Saha who was first on the merit list and Respondent No.4 Atanu Kumar Dutta were the two social workers appointed to the Board. Being aggrieved by that notification, the Respondent No.1 challenged the same in WP 7763(W) of 2015. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the appointment of Respondent No.4 and directed the appellants to ensure that Respondent No.1 was appointed as the second social worker on the JJB. The State was directed to pay costs assessed to the petitioner, i.e., the Respondent No.1 herein.
(3.) The present appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The main issue raised by Mr. Lakshmi Kumar Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the appellants is that the learned Single Judge has ignored the provisions of Rule 5(4)(b) of the West Bengal Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2009 which empower the State Government to appoint any person to the JJB. He submitted that a person could be appointed by the State to the Board regardless of whether he had participated in the selection process, if the State found that the person was more suitable for the job than those who had succeeded in the selection process. He also submitted that a selection committee merely recommends the names of the persons who are suitable for being appointed to the Board under Sub -Rule (1) of Rule 92 of the aforesaid Rules. He pointed out that it is not incumbent on the Government to appoint those persons who have been selected if it finds that more suitable persons are available for the job. The learned Counsel then submitted that because of the haste with which the learned Single Judge decided the writ petition, the aforesaid issue was not considered by him.;