State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Nazrul Islam

The State of West Bengal and Others ... Appellants

Versus

Sk. Nazrul Islam ...

Respondent

O R D E R

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

Leave granted.

2. This is an appeal against the order dated

14.09.2010 of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High

Court in W.P.S.T. No.1911 of 2008.

3. The facts very briefly are that on 26.07.2007 the Police

Directorate of West Bengal notified recruitment of

Constables in the West Bengal Police from Howrah

District. The name of the respondent was sponsored by

the Employment Exchange, Uluberia, Howrah, for

2

recruitment as Constable and on 17.09.2007 the

provisional select list was notified in which the

respondent's name found place at serial no.76. The

respondent appeared before the Medical Board and was

found medically fit. On 28.09.2007, the respondent was

supplied a Verification Roll for verification of his

antecedents and the respondent filled the Verification

Roll and submitted the same to the Reserve Officer,

Howrah, on 29.09.2007. The Verification Roll of the

respondent was sent to the District Intelligence Branch,

Howrah, on 08.10.2007. In the course of enquiry, it

came to light that he was involved in a criminal case

involving offences under Sections

148/323/380/448/427/506, IPC, in Bagnan PS Case

No.97 of 2007 and after investigation, the charge-sheet

had already been filed in the Court of the Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia, Howrah, and that

the respondent had surrendered before the Court and

had been granted bail. All these facts, however, had

been concealed in column no.13 of the Verification Roll

submitted by the respondent in which he was required

3

to state whether he was ever arrested, detained or

convicted. The authorities, therefore, did not appoint the

respondent as a Constable.

4. Aggrieved, the respondent filed O.A.No.2500 of

2008 before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal

for a direction upon the authorities to issue

appointment letter in his favour, but by order dated

25.07.2008 the Tribunal declined to grant any relief to

the respondent. The order of the Tribunal was

challenged by the respondent before the High Court and

in the impugned order, the High Court held that the

authorities were not entitled to withhold the offer of

appointment to the respondent and directed the

authorities to issue the letter of appointment in

favour of the respondent without any further delay. The

High Court, however, observed in the impugned order

that the appointment of the respondent to the post of

Constable will abide by the final decision of the pending

criminal case.

4 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties

and we fail to appreciate how when a criminal case under

Sections 148/323/380/448/427/506, IPC, against the

respondent was pending in the Court of the Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia, Howrah, any

mandamus could have been issued by the High Court to

the authorities to appoint the respondent as a

Constable. Surely, the authorities entrusted with the

responsibility of appointing constables were under

duty to verify the antecedents of a candidate to find out

whether he is suitable for the post of constable and so

long as the candidate has not been acquitted in the

criminal case of the charges under Sections

148/323/380/448/427/506, IPC, he cannot possibly

be held to be suitable for appointment to the post of

Constable.

6. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the

impugned order of the High Court and dismiss the Writ

Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution filed

5

by the respondent in the High Court. There shall be no

order as to costs.

.............................J.

(R. V.

Raveendran)

.............................J.

(A. K.

Patnaik)

New Delhi,

October 13, 2011.