corporate law
The Calcutta High Court, in its recent ruling from July 31, 2024, in the case of West Bengal Courts’ Employees’ Association Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors (WPA 16317 of 2024), determined that the State should refrain from proceeding with recruitment notifications aimed at hiring stenographers and bench clerks for the District Judiciary on a contractual basis. The court emphasized that these positions are critical for the effective functioning of the District Judiciary, and hiring on a contractual basis may lead to complications.
The Court, led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arindam Mukherjee, put a halt to two recruitment notifications intended for the North and South 24 Parganas judgeships. The core of the decision stemmed from the observation that individuals engaged on a contractual basis lack the responsibilities and liabilities inherent to regular employees concerning any misconduct.
The petition had been initiated on June 24, 2024, by the West Bengal Courts’ Employees’ Association in response to recruitment notifications dated February 28, 2024, and March 14, 2024. The former focused on staffing in Fast Track Courts and Family Courts in North 24-Parganas, while the latter was for Fast Track Courts in South 24-Parganas. Both notifications proposed hiring personnel purely on a contractual basis for an initial period of one year, with the possibility of renewal.
The vacancies listed in the February 28, 2024 notification included positions for English Steno-Typist, Bench Clerk (Peshkar), Bailiff, Peon, and Karmabandhu. Conversely, the March 14, 2024 notification sought to fill positions for the same types of roles.
The petitioners asserted that the recruitment process violated the provisions laid out in the West Bengal District Court (Constitution of Service, Recruitment, Appointment, Probation and Discipline of Employees) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 2015 Rules). They pointed out that:
The Court remarked that because no sanctioned post of English Steno-Typist exists, recruitment for such a position based on the current notifications is untenable.
The Bench concluded that the provisions outlined in Schedule-B of the 2015 Rules dictate that vacancies for Bench Clerk roles must also be filled through promotion rather than contractual hiring. Thus, the creation of a post termed “Bench Clerk (Peshkar)” also does not comply with existing regulations.
The respondents claimed no involvement in the recruitment process, noting that a committee meeting on February 14, 2024, had led to proposals for implementing recommendations from the Justice Shetty Commission. However, the petitioners rebuffed these claims, emphasizing that the move towards contractual engagement undermines regular employees’ promotion avenues.
The Bench expressed concern over the prolonged lack of recruitment for regular employees, which they stated compromises the operational integrity of the District Judiciary. The engagement of a limited number of contractual employees would not remedy the situation, nor serve as a sustainable solution.
In its ruling, the Calcutta High Court firmly established that:
The court ordered that no further actions be taken regarding the recruitment notifications dated February 28, 2024, and March 14, 2024, pending the outcome of this writ petition. Any engagements arising from these notifications would not grant equity to the contracted individuals.
The matter mandates further review, with respondents directed to submit affidavits by August 23, 2024, and petitioners to reply by September 6, 2024. This pivotal judgment highlights the imperative need for regular recruitment in ensuring the efficiency and integrity of the District Judiciary in West Bengal.