Protik Prakash Banerjee, J. - (1.) In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 the petitioner has challenged an Office Order passed by the respondent Corporation whereby 25 persons were selected and given appointment to the post of Senior Chemist Grade III (Trainee) at the respondent corporation. These appointments were made pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent Corporation which advertised, inter alia, that 25 vacancies for the post of Senior Chemist Grade III (Trainee) were vacant and invited application from interested candidates. The petitioner was one such candidate who participated in the selection process up to the stage of personal interview, however, he was not selected for the aforesaid post. He was not successful and was not empanelled. He has challenged the process as an unsuccessful candidate, with wide and unspecified allegations of corruption, without however, making any officer of the respondent no. 1 a party eo nomine.
(2.) The case of the writ petitioner is that the entire selection process through which the aforesaid vacancies have been filled is not merely illegal but at the same time it treats the candidature of the writ petitioner unfairly. It has been contended by the writ petitioner that he obtained higher marks during the selection process compared to the selected candidates. On the basis of the aforesaid contentions the writ petitioner, inter alia, prayed principally for the following reliefs: a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondents to forthwith quash and/or the set aside the office order through which 25 persons have been selected for the post of Senior Chemist Grade III(Trainee) in DVC as per information obtained under RTI.b) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondents to issue joining/appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Senior Chemist Grade III(Trainee) in DVC.c) A writ of and/or in the nature of Prohibition do issue restraining the respondents authorities from inducting any person for the post of Senior Chemist Grade III(Trainee) other than the petitioner till the disposal of the writ petition.
(3.) The respondent corporation has primarily impeached the maintainability of this writ petition. The first ground for challenging the maintainability of the writ petition is that the writ petitioner has failed to array as private respondents the candidates who have already been given appointment to the aforesaid posts. In support of the aforesaid contention, a judgment in Ashim Moulick v The State of West Bengal, 2015 1 CalHN 245 (DB) passed by the Hon ble Division Bench of this Court has been relied upon before this Court. In the said judgment, their Lordships observed the following: The contention of the Petitioner is that since he is better qualified and more meritorious than those who have been appointed to the aforesaid post he must also be appointed to the post.The argument advanced on behalf of the Petitioner is fallacious. The Petitioner has not made any of the persons who have been selected or appointed parties to the Original Application. Therefore, he cannot seek any relief against their appointment. Moreover, the Petitioner's case that he was better qualified than the others who have been appointed could have been examined only if he had made those persons parties to the Original Application. Having fail to do so, the Petitioner cannot now contend that he has been excluded wrongly.When the Petitioner filed the Original Application in 2011 he was well aware that the panel of the selected candidates have been prepared as he was in possession of the recommendation of the Selection Committee for appointment to the post of Driver Grade - II at Pool Car Office, Kolkata. Despite this the Petitioner has not challenged the selected panel in the Original Application. ;