PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE, J. - (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the Order No. 7 dated November 19, 2018 passed in O.A. No. 1238 of 2016 by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. By this order, the learned Tribunal disposed of the original application after holding that there was no merit in it and thereby rejected the contention of the petitioner that he was entitled to pensionary benefits.
(2.) It is not in dispute that a selection process was duly held in respect whereof a panel had been appeared for the post of "patrolman" under the Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal on November 16, 1990. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was empanelled in it. Though the life of a panel is normally one year or at the most two years, as the relevant rules ordain, this panel was allowed to continue for almost 8 (eight) years until by a Memo dated January 8, 1999 it was cancelled by an order dated December 17, 1998 purportedly due to non-availability of vacancy. This deprived the petitioner of a chance to be considered for gainful employment for earning his livelihood without following the procedure established by law, due process and without a speaking order. The petitioner moved the learned Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 1937 of 1999 which was disposed of by an order dated June 6, 2000 directing the respondents to consider his complaint and pass a speaking order within a certain time. The record shows that pursuant thereto the respondents passed an order dated January 25, 2002, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for being appointed for a suitable job after waiving the age bar. The petitioner carried this to the learned Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 1468 of 2002. It was allowed by the learned Tribunal by the Order No. 24 dated February 8, 2007 holding, inter alia, as follows: "In support of their contention it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that normally one panel is to exist for a period of 15 months. But, in this case, the life of the said panel was extended for more than 8/9 years. But abruptly the concerned authority without extending the same further has cancelled the aforesaid panel for which the Petitioner has been seriously prejudiced as his name has never been forwarded to any other authority by the concerned employment exchange for being involved in the aforesaid selection process and that being the position he has suffered a lot and by now he has crossed the age limit for entry in the Govt. service and this Tribunal by its order 15.10.01 was pleased to direct that it case the applicants claim is accepted for employment, he age will not be a bar and the same should be condoned. Taking cue from the aforesaid order, it was contended on behalf of the Petitioner, placing their reliance unreported decisions of Hon'ble High Court passed in WP-3673 (W of 2006) that he should be given similar benefits by directing the state respondents to find ways and means to accommodate the Petitioner as per his eligibility. In such situation, having heard the parties before us and upon considering the totality of the circumstances as reflected in the record, we pass this direction to the State Respondent to find ways and means to accommodate the Petitioner by giving him the appointment as per eligibility provided that there is existing vacancy in the concerned department and in the matter of such appointment the age will not be treated as a bar. We further direct the respondent to take a decision in this regard within a period of six months from this order. Let it however be made clear that this will never create any precedent in any other matter."
(3.) It will be apparent that the order dated August 02, 2007 was a mandatory order which in fact held the petitioner entitled to appointment. The petitioner's name was never forwarded to any other recruiting authority by the concerned Employment Exchange because his name had been empanelled and continued to be so empanelled before it was arbitrarily cancelled. Therefore, it is safe to hold that the entitlement of the petitioner would date back to February 08, 2007 at the latest and to the date of institution of O.A. No. 1468 of 2002 at the earliest. We hold thus since the entitlement of the petitioner had to be considered from the date of his application to the learned Tribunal once the age bar was waived.;