Stenographers, Bench Clerks Are Sensitive Posts In District Judiciary, Cannot Be Contractually Appointed: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that posts such as stenographers and bench clerks are sensitive positions in the district judiciary and that employees to these posts cannot be contractually appointed since they would not share the same responsibilities or liabilities as permanent employees.

A single bench of Justice Arindam Mukherjee stayed two recruitment notifications seeking to contractually appoint stenographers and bench clerks to the North and South 24 Parganas judgeship. The court observed:

It is a matter of anguish that the recruitment process for recruiting regular employees against the sanctioned post lying vacant has not been conducted for years together despite assurances given by the State. The post of 'Stenographer', 'Bench Clerk (Peshkar)' are very sensitive post for the smooth functioning of the District Judiciary. Any person engaged on contractual basis cannot be fastened with any responsibility or liability like a regular employee for any misconduct. Engagement on contractual basis in such sensitive post are likely to create more difficulties than aiding in smooth functioning of the District Judiciary. 

The court was dealing with a writ petition by the West Bengal Courts' Employees' Association challenging two recruitment notifications in respect of the engagement of staff in Fast Track Courts and Family Court in the District Judgeship of North 24-Parganas and South 24-Parganas.

The recruitment process under both notifications was for engagement of persons on a contractual basis initially for a period of one year with the option to renew. 

Proceedings before the Court

Petitioners submitted that in view of the provisions of the West Bengal District Court (Constitution of Service, Recruitment, Appointment, Probation and Discipline of Employees) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 2015 Rules) there is no provision for engagement of persons on contractual basis for the declared vacancies.

Referring to the provisions of Chapter-III & Schedule D of the said Rule, it was submitted by the petitioners that there is no post termed as “English Steno-Typist” sanctioned under the said Rules. The sanctioned posts are Stenographer Grade-I, Stenographer Grade-II and Stenographer Grade-III.

The cadre of Stenographer Grade-I is to be filled up entirely by way of promotion from the feeder post that is Stenographer Grade-II. In Stenographer Grade-II. It was contended that there is a provision for recruiting 25% by direct recruitment, the balance 75% is required to be filled up by promotion from the post of Stenographer Grade-III, and so on. 

The petitioners said that there are no provisions for filling up any of the posts of Stenographers Grade-I, Stenographers Grade-II and Stenographers Grade-III by contractual engagement. Similar arguments were made to rule out the possibility of contractual appointments against any of the sanctioned posts.

On behalf of the State, it was submitted that there is an acute shortfall of employees in the posts sought to be filled by contractual engagement. There has been no recruitment process for several years in the past, and as such, at the present to manage the functioning of the District Judiciary the contractual appointments have been sought to be made.

It was stated that if the two appointment notifications are interfered with then there will be an impasse in the functioning of the District Judiciary. It was further submitted by the State that the said Rules is for the appointment of permanent employees and there is no bar to engage contractual employees even if the posts available for regular appointment remain vacant.

It was also submitted that towards payment of unskilled employees (Peons) on a contractual basis a sum of Rs.64,12,032/- has been spent in the financial year 2022-2023. The engagement of contractual employees and staff is not a new procedure.

It was further submitted that although the dates for the recruitment process had been notified in advance, the petitioners had waited so long and only when the appointment was scheduled to be given, the petitioners filed the present writ petition with an ulterior motive and mala fide intent. 

In reply, the petitioners argued that apart from the illegality sought to be perpetrated by engaging contractual employees against the regular sanctioned post without holding a regular recruitment process, the respondents by way of contractual engagement are trying to scuttle the promotional avenues of the regular employees.

It was argued that even if the regular recruitment process could not be held there was no embargo in promoting the persons from the feeder post to the next promotional post in order to meet the immediate crisis instead of engaging contractual employees.

This will amount to depriving the regular employees from being considered for promotion despite having the requisite qualifications, and experience for being considered for promotion under the said rules, it was argued.

Upon hearing the arguments of the parties, the Bench found merit in the submissions of the petitioners and held that the state could not meet the needs of the district judiciary by making contractual appointments to sensitive, sanctioned posts as it would create more problems than it would solve.

Hence, it directed the state to not proceed with either of the recruitment notifications and observed that no equity would be created in favour of anyone contractually appointed to the said posts in the meantime.

Case: West Bengal Courts' Employees' Association Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. 

Case No: WPA 16317 of 2024

Click here to read order