T. Sen, J. - (1.) This Appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment and Order dated 7.5.2003 passed in W.P. 6063 (W) of 2002 Goutam Sinha and Ors. v/s. D.V.C. and Ors. whereby and whereunder a learned Single Judge of this Court directed that the Writ Petitioners/workmen/Private Respondents (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the Private Respondents) be included in the panel in terms of Annexures - P14 and P15 (brought on record by the Appellants through their supplementary Paper book) for purposes of absorption in accordance with the prevalent Schemes by treating as if their names had appeared in the panel right from the very beginning.
(2.) The facts of this case, as gathered from the Paper Book, are that the Private Respondents filed the Writ Petition which was registered as W.P. No. 6063 (W) of 2002 wherein, while referring to the Office Circular dated 15.9.1977 and 25.5.1996 as well as other Circulars, they inter alia prayed for the issuance of a Writ of or in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Appellant and its Officers (who were arrayed as Respondents therein) to prepare a Panel of Casual Employees working in the colony beautification work at the Durgapur Thermal Power Station and, after preparation of the said panel, a further Writ be issued directing their absorption on permanent basis on Group "D" posts in the said Durgapur Thermal Power Station with immediate effect.
(3.) Mr. Arunava Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, has submitted that the impugned Order is totally erroneous and unless set aside, the same will cause serious complications to all concerned including other empanelled workmen. He challenged the impugned Order by submitting that the direction to include the names of the Private Respondents by treating them as already empanelled right from the beginning would have a disastrous effect to all those persons who were already in the Panel and who had been so empanelled after they had applied in terms of the Circular dated 15.9.1977 but who were not even Parties before the Court. He then submitted that if the Private Respondents are included in the Panel, it would affect those persons and this would have serious complications. His further submission was that the Circular (Annexure -P11) dated 15.9.1977 as included in the Supplementary Paper -book which was filed pursuant to leave having been granted on 19.2.2008, had laid down certain norms and procedure to be followed for purposes of recruitment to Class -III Posts and this Circular, in effect, was a Scheme which inter alia laid down that the appointment to Class -III Posts including temporary/casual employees, could be made through the usual process of interview/test after their names had been received pursuant to Applications having been invited and routed through the concerned Employment Exchange where the names of these candidates were registered. He submitted that such a procedure having been set out under Clause 3A read with Clause 3B of the said Circular dated 15.9.1977, the same was followed in the case of other candidates but so far as the Private Respondents were concerned, they had neither appeared in any Interview nor had they sat for any Test and therefore, if the Order of the learned Single Judge had to be implemented, the same would, in fact be in violation of the said Circulars.;