M.N. Roy, J. - (1.) In this rule, the petitioners have challenged certain selections made in respect of other employee in preference to them.
(2.) The petitioners were appointed originally as candidate auditors in 1955 and thereafter, after undergoing one years' training they were promoted to the rank of Inspectors of Co-operative Society and by the order dated 4th November, 1958 they were asked to act as such from the said date of appointment. It has been alleged that on the date when the present rule was issued viz., on 5th April, 1974, they were working faithfully and honestly in their respective ranks of Inspectors. They have stated that on or about 19th December, 1967, they along with other Inspectors were confirmed in their respective positions with effect from 2nd November, 1966.
(3.) It appears from the pleadings that the petitioner No. 1 Shri Anil Kumar Banerjee stood first in the examination for training as approved auditor and as such was also his case in the High Diploma Course in Co-operation. It has been stated that the said petitioner No. I not only stood first in order of merit but in the remarks column against his name he was categorised as "excellent". It has been alleged that since 1958 or there about the petitioners were working as Inspectors of Co-operative Society very efficiently and at least petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, in token of their meritorious services, were appointed to fill up responsible posts for the last 7 years and in fact the petitioner No. 1 was the Manager of the District Central Co-operative Bank, Murshidabad and Kalna, Katvva Central Co-operative Bank. It further appears from the pleadings that the petitioner No. 3 was appointed Manager in the district level Primary Land Mortgage Bank at Jalpaiguri and Birbhum at different times and because of their performance and efficiency, there were no complaint of any kind against the petitioners. In fact it has been contended by the petitioners that throughout their service career, there was no occasion or any reason for having unfavourable remarks against them by the superior officers and their confidential character rolls were free from any blemish whatsoever. In fact it has been categorically asserted that had there been any such unfavourable report or remarks, they, in terms of the requirements of the statute and the practice, should have been shown to them. The petitioners have alleged that no such or any remarks was ever shown or communicated and intimated to them.;