Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. - (1.) A legal tussel has spiraled up to this Court seeking a quietus to the issues as to whether in the backdrop of the averments made in the writ petitions and the facts disclosed through the affidavits- in- opposition filed by the Principal Secretary (Coordination), Home Department, Government of West Bengal on 22nd April, 2016 and by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Administration), Bankura authorized by the Superintendent of Police, Bankura on 13th May,2016, the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the entire process of the 2013 recruitment (hereinafter referred to as the said recruitment process) of civic police volunteers (hereinafter referred to as the CPVs) at the Sarenga and Barikul police stations in the district of Bankura and in issuing direction towards constitution of a committee comprising of the Principal Secretary in the Finance Department as the Chairman, the present Transport Secretary and the present Commissioner of the Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate to look into the process of the recruitment of CVPs all over the State and to annul such of the engagements that may have been brought about in derogation to the eligibility criteria and without actually the candidates being interviewed in a reasonable process and to present its report to the Chief Secretary to the State Government within three months and in declaring that the engagements of CVPs under the said recruitment process shall not be valid after the end of the calendar year 2016.
(2.) The learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants submits that the writ petitions ought to have been dismissed at the threshold on the ground of delay. The recruitment process was of the year 2013 and the only written objection/representation submitted by the petitioners was three years thereafter on 9th March, 2016. Save and except a mere statement, bereft of any evidence, that prior to the written objection the petitioners approached the office of the respondent authority several times, there is no other explanation as to why the petitioners did not submit any written objection before the competent authority earlier though they came to learn on the respective dates of interview itself (8th April, 2013/12th April, 2013) that they have not been selected for engagement. The said explanation needs to be read with the averments made in paragraph 7 of the writ petitions in which it has been stated that "there are still, vacancies remaining within Sarenga police station in the District of Bankura as such your petitioners are entitled to be appointed as a civic police volunteer". From the said pleadings it is, thus, explicit that the writ petitions were nothing but chance litigations to get engagement. On the issue of delay and laches reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others vs- T.T. Murali Babu, 2014 4 SCC 108.
(3.) He further argues that the writ petitions have been allowed interfering with the engagement of 1,30,000 CPVs all over the State only at the instance of nine unsuccessful candidates who did not even implead the successful candidates. The learned Judge did not even issue appropriate direction towards issuance of notice and impleadment of the successful candidates. As a consequence thereof, an adverse order has been suffered by the successful candidates who had been engaged as CPVs way back in the year 2013. The impugned order thus suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the judgments delivered in the case of Ranjan Kumar etc. etc. vs- State of Bihar & Ors., 2014 16 SCC 187, in the case of Poonam vs- State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2016 2 SCC 779 and in the case of Amlan Jyoti Borooah vs- State of Assam & Others, 2009 3 SCC 227. Placing reliance upon the judgments delivered in the case of Madan Lal and others vs- State of J. and K. and others, 1995 3 SCC 486 and in the case of Dhananjay Malik & Ors. vs- State of Uttaranchal &Ors., 2008 4 SCC 171, he argues that having participated in the selection process, the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and challenge the selection process.;