Appointments Made In Political Considerations Can't Be Given Seal Of Approval: Calcutta HC Orders Health Dept To Reconstitute District Committees

The petitioner argued that by virtue of such political appointments there was a serious apprehension as to the existence of nepotism and malpractice in the selection process of contractual employees through such Selection Committees as also an apprehension of bias whereby likelihood of preference would be given to supporters of the ruling political party and candidates connected thereto.

The second limb of the petitioner's argument was that as Selection Committees conduct selection of contractual employees for appointment in different posts of the Health Department, the appointment of political leaders, who are not field experts, as Chairpersons of such Selection Committees is without basis and justification.

The Respondent State, represented through the Advocate General for West Bengal, argued that no case for interference by the Court was made out as there was no bar on politicians holding post of Chairperson and further that such Chairpersons had not been impleaded as party respondents in the instant proceedings. The State submitted that such Chairpersons were involved with the selection process only insofar as the interview of prospective candidates was concerned which had very little weightage in the said process. It further argued that an argument of bias could only have been raised by prospective candidates seeking appointment through the Selection Committees. 

Upon hearing the rival contention of parties, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Prakash Srivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj concurred with the arguments advanced by the petitioners as to the apprehension of bias in respect of selection of contractual employees by the Selection Committees. It observed:

"Since, the matter relates to public employment, therefore, it is necessary to have fair selection. The argument raised by the Counsel for the petitioner that if political leaders of the ruling party are appointed as Chairman of the Selection Committee in all the districts, then there is every likelihood that these Chairmen will give preference to the candidates who had supported them or their party in the election or the kith and kin of the supporters of the ruling party. Such an argument carries weight. That apart, it has also been pointed out that the members of the Committee will have no say under the influence of such a powerful political leader connected with the ruling party."

On merits, the Court arrived at the finding that Ministers, MLAs and leaders of the ruling political party in the State of West Bengal had been appointed as Chairman of the district level Selection Committees in all the districts of the State and that none of the appointed Chairmen, except for one, had any expertise in the field of health services. The Court also took stock of a pleading made by the State respondents in its affidavit-in-opposition admitting that the Chairmen had been appointed as they were well known to the public and consequently the implication before the Court from such admission was that such political appointments had been made for the sole purpose of appointing influential political leaders as Chairmen of the Selection Committees.

Agreeing with the petitioner's argument that the appointment of influential political leaders as Chairmen of Selection Committees at various districts entertained a very real likelihood and danger of bias, the Court simultaneously rejected the argument of the Respondent State on the point that there was no likelihood of bias as the Chairmen were only involved in the interviewing of prospective candidates which by itself had very little weightage in the selection process. The Court observed:

"If the influential political leaders at the district level are made Chairman of the Selection Committee, then there is always the likelihood of bias. Even if the weightage of interview is 10-15% but any incidence of bias can render the process non-transparent and cause serious prejudice to the candidates appearing in the interview."

As regards the ancillary argument of the State respondents on the locus of the petitioner, the Court rejected such argument reiterating that the rule of locus did not apply to PILs and further that the instant petition was filed by a social worker in relation to appointment on posts of medical officers, staff nurse and other staff relating to medical services which was in larger public interest.

The Court separately noted that as the petitioner had raised a public cause through the instant PIL, he could not be ousted on the plea of locus. On the dilution of the rule of locus standi in PIL proceedings, the Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in M.S. Jayaraj v. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala and Others reported in (2000) 7 SCC 552.

Summarising its findings and reasoning, the Bench ruled:

"Thus, it is settled if there is real likelihood of bias on the part of a member of a Selection Committee then it is not proper to include such a person in the Committee. In the present case, we find that not only there is likelihood of bias but real danger of bias if the political leader having influence in the area concerned is made Chairman of the district level Committee for selection of the candidate for public employment. Effect of bias will be stronger when the plea is that that there is no other strong and equally effective member in the Committee to counter the influence of the Chairman."

The Court accordingly set aside the executive order with a further direction upon the State respondents to reconstitute such Selection Committee within two weeks by appointing eminent neutral persons as Chairmen thereof to ensure fair selection in public employment and wipe off any apprehension or danger of bias.

Case: Pijus Patra v. State of West Bengal & Ors., WPA (P) 335 of 2022

Date: 13.12.2022

Counsels for the petitioners: Mr. Bikram Banerjee, Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta, Mr. Arka Nandi, Ms. Dipa Acharyya, Mr. Sutirtha Nayek, Ms. Shalini Ghosh

Counsels for the State respondents: Mr. S. N. Mookerjee, Ld. Advocate General, Mr. Samrat Sen, Ld. Assistant Additional Advocate General, Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee, Ms. Manali Ali

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 367