- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Of West Bengal And Others v. Sk. Nazrul Islam .
Factual and Procedural Background
The Police Directorate of West Bengal notified recruitment of constables from Howrah District on 26-7-2007. The respondent’s name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Uluberia, Howrah, and a provisional select list dated 17-9-2007 placed his name at Serial No. 76. He was examined by a Medical Board and found medically fit.
On 28-9-2007, the respondent was provided a verification roll to disclose antecedents, which he submitted on 29-9-2007. The verification roll was forwarded to the District Intelligence Branch, Howrah, on 8-10-2007. During enquiry, it was discovered that the respondent was involved in Bagnan PS Case No. 97 of 2007 for offences under Sections 148/323/380/448/427/506 IPC, that a charge-sheet had been filed before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia, Howrah, and that he had surrendered and been granted bail. These facts were concealed in Column 13 of the verification roll, where he was required to disclose any arrest, detention, or conviction. The authorities, therefore, did not appoint him as a constable.
The respondent challenged the non-appointment by filing OA No. 2500 of 2008 before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, which declined relief by order dated 25-7-2008. On a writ petition (WPST No. 1911 of 2008), the High Court directed issuance of the appointment letter without delay, stating that the appointment would abide by the final decision of the pending criminal case. On appeal, the present opinion addresses the legality of the High Court’s direction.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in light of a pending criminal case against the respondent and concealment of that fact in the verification roll, the authorities could withhold appointment to the post of constable.
- Whether the High Court could issue a mandamus directing appointment despite the pendency of criminal charges, subject to the outcome of the criminal case.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court emphasized the duty of the recruiting authority to verify the antecedents of candidates for the post of constable to assess their suitability. It noted that a criminal case under Sections 148/323/380/448/427/506 IPC was pending against the respondent in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia, Howrah. In such circumstances, the court found no basis for the High Court to issue a mandamus compelling appointment.
According to the court, until a candidate has been acquitted of the criminal charges, he cannot be considered suitable for appointment as a constable. The court therefore concluded that the High Court’s direction to appoint the respondent, even with the caveat that the appointment would abide by the final outcome of the criminal case, was unsustainable.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal was allowed. The High Court’s order directing appointment was set aside, and the respondent’s writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution was dismissed. There was no order as to costs.
Implications: The direct effect is that the respondent will not be appointed as a constable pursuant to the High Court’s order. The decision affirms that recruitment authorities may refuse appointment where a criminal case is pending against a candidate and that a court should not compel appointment in such circumstances. No broader implications or new precedent beyond the case-specific principle articulated were discussed in the opinion.
A.K Patnaik, J.— Leave granted. This is an appeal against the order dated 14-9-2010 of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in WPST No. 1911 of 2008.
2. The facts very briefly are that on 26-7-2007 the Police Directorate of West Bengal notified recruitment of constables in West Bengal Police from Howrah District. The name of the respondent was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Uluberia, Howrah, for recruitment as constable and on 17-9-2007 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.
3*. On 28-9-2007, 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 29-9-2007. The verification roll of the respondent was sent to the District Intelligence Branch, Howrah, on 8-10-2007. 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 13 of the verification roll submitted by the respondent in which he was required 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 OA 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 25-7-2008 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.
5*. We have heard the 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 by the respondent in the High Court. There shall be no order as to costs.
Alert