PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE,J. - (1.) The writ petition has been moved on service. The State of West Bengal is represented. However, despite service, as appears from the Affidavit of service, none has appeared for the 8th respondent or the respondent nos. 6 and 7. The affidavit of service shall be kept on record.
(2.) The welfare State proposed to appoint support staff for a hostel attached to a Madrasah. Accordingly, it notified the selection process on November 3, 2015 and through an instrumentality of the 1st respondent issued interview letter to the petitioner. These are annexures P/1 and P/2 of the writ petition. Pursuant thereto a selection process was duly held on January 6, 2016, which is Annexure P/3 to the petition. According to that decision it was made clear that there would not be any direct appointment, but self-help group would be engaged temporarily as the agency of the State. That self-help group, so appointed, would, in turn, engage/appoint suitable persons to the said posts. At Annexure P/4 the resolution of the said agency has been annexed wherefrom it appears that the petitioner was appointed as a caretaker by the self-help group. After the aforesaid appointment was made by the agency of the State, however, temporary, the State thereafter attempted to partially wash its hands off its liability as a model employer vide Annexure P/6 at page 22 where it, inter-alia, provided as follows: "7. The selected Local Self-Help Groups will man the position of posts of Caretaker (for Boys' hostel) or Matron (for Girls' hostel), Cook, Helper, Night Gurad and Cleaner/Karmabandhu provided there would be no direct payment to anyone, rather payment of honorarium/remuneration will have to be made through Local Self-Help Grops treated as Agencies to be selected by the Screening Committee in this regard, on submission of bill. The educational qualification of the Caretaker/Matron should be Higher Secondary pass or equivalent or above. The post of Matron should be reserved for female candidate only."
(3.) On instructions, learned advocate for the State submits that pursuant to this notification at Annexure P/6 dated January 10, 2017, issued after the appointment of the writ petitioner, as a caretaker, on July 12, 2016 the State had released the necessary funds in favour of the Madrasah arrayed as respondent nos. 6 and 7, which apparently released the funds, in turn, in favour of the 8th respondent, but it is the 8th respondent which has made the payment to the writ petitioner for which reason the writ petitioner has been paid. So the learned advocate for the State submits that the petitioner could have directly come up against the State of West Bengal because the notification issued after his appointment clearly stated that no direct payment would be made by the State of West Bengal to anyone.;