Subrata Talukdar, J. - In this petition the writ petitioner, inter alia, has sought the relief of cancelling the Memo dated 18th of March, 2016 issued by the General Manager (Administration), West Bengal Cooperative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank (the Bank) thereby marking the culminating point in the long history of successive lis initiated by the writ petitioner for appointment as a regular Sub-Staff (SS) under the Bank.

2. The petitioner has sought the additional relief of cancellation of the appointments of the respondent No. 8 to 12 as SS under the Bank.

3. The short facts connected to the case made out by Mr. PratipChatterjee, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, are as follows.

4. That from the Resolution of the Bank dated 17th of January, 1998 it transpires that the writ petitioner/Subodh Kumar Bhadra (for short SKB) was appointed with one Asis Kumar Banerjee as casual staff under the Bank on a daily allowance of Rs. 40/- (Rupees Forty only). Both SKB and the said Asis Kumar Banerjee (for short AKB) commenced their work at the Bank with effect from 27th of January, 1998.

5. In terms of his engagement SKB rendered service with the Bank for a total period of 371 days, i.e. between 27th of January, 1998 to August, 1999. My Memo dated 10th of July, 2000 issued by the Bank,SKB was directed to appear for selection towardsabsorption of his service with the Bank. The Selection Committee constituted by the Bank summonedSKB to appear for the viva voceon 20thof July, 2000.

6. Mr. Chatterjee argues that in a clear reflection of bias, except SKB the other 9 candidates working as casual staff were permanently appointed. By way of instance, Mr. Chatterjee submits that SKB did not receive endorsement from any senior managerial functionary of the Bank unlike the other 9 candidates. Therefore, on the 22nd of January, 2001 the petitioner filed a comprehensive representation before the concerned authority of the Bank seeking consideration at par with the other 9 similarly as also less circumstanced candidates.

7. Since the representation of the writ petitioner did not receive the desired response from the Bank, SKB filed Writ Petition No.1935 (W) of 2001 (WPI) which was disposed of by order of the Honble Single Bench on the 16th of May, 2001. The Court, inter alia, was pleased to direct the Managing Director (MD) of the Bank to consider and dispose of the representation of SKB dated 22nd of January, 2001 after giving an opportunity of hearing toSKB within a specified period. The Court permitted SKB to present the relevant documents before the MD/ the Hearing Authority, as advised.

8. In terms of the order of the Court dated 16th of May, 2001 , SKBwas directed to appear for a hearing on the 5th of September, 2001. Mr. Chatterjee submits that since no order was passed pursuant to the hearing, SKB was compelled to file a contempt application being CPAN 347 of 2002.

9. Ultimately theMD passed his order on the 2nd of September, 2005.Videthe order dated 2nd of September, 2005,the MD denied having any role in the appointment of SSin the Bank.The MD however, Mr. Chatterjee points out, assured SKB that although he is not empowered to act as the Appointing Authority for SS, the name of the petitionerSKB would be placed for consideration before the appropriate authority as and when a vacancy occurs in the cadre of SS.

10. Mr. Chatterjeefurther points out that the order of the MD dated the 2nd of September, 2005 pursuant to the solemn order of the Court dated 16th of May, 2001 is misconceived, inasmuch as it would be obvious from the letters of appointment issued in favour of the other 9 candidates that such letters of appointment were issued by the MD of the Bank himself.

11. Therefore, challenging the order of the MD dated the 2nd of September, 2005, SKB filed his second writ petition before Court being WP No.8861 (W) of 2006 (WP II). WP II was ultimatelydecided on the 17th of August, 2015 with a direction upon the Bank to consider and dispose of the claim of SKB after giving an opportunity of hearing and by passing a reasoned order within a specified period.

12. The order of the Honble Court dated the 17th of August, 2015 was complied with by the communication of the Bank holding that SKB was considered for absorption on the basis of his empanelment in the year 2000 in terms of the Resolution of the Board of Directors (BOD) of the Bank dated the 12th of August, 2000. Taking this Court to the order impugned in this writ petition dated 18th of March, 2016, Mr. Chatterjee submits that the order, inter alia, notices as follows.

13. That SKB passed his Madhyamik examination in Second Division in 1989 and, was inducted as a casual staff in 1998 being called for theviva voce on the 20th of July, 2000.

14. That the BOD by its Resolution dated 12th of August, 2000 empanelled six (6) candidatesfor appointment asSS as recommended by the Selection Committee of the Bank on the 2nd of August, 2000. A reserve panel of 4 (four) candidates, including SKBat serial No.3 thereof, was also prepared. In terms of the Resolution of the BODdated 12th August, 2000, the first panel of six (6) candidates was appointed in the year 2000. Subsequently in the year 2010 out of four empanelled candidates in the Reserve List, the candidates at serial Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were extended the benefit of appointment, inexplicably leaving out SKB at serial No.3 thereof.

15. The order dated 18th of March, 2016 takes the position that since the initial place of appointment of SKB, viz. the Asansol Branch, was folded up in the interregnum, SKB could not claim to be continued in casual capacity thereby effectively blocking his claim to absorption. Furthermore, the threshold qualification of Class X passed for appointment to the position of SS could not be met by SKB who was only Madhyamik passed, being a non- equivalent qualification. The Bank also took the stand that the Reserve List lapsed effective from 30th May, 2002. Also,SKB failed to challenge his discontinuation as casual staff of the Bank effective from the date of closure of the Asansol Branch in WP IIwhich was filed in the year 2006.

16. Qua the appointment of the first six candidates from the panel in the year 2000, the Bank takes the further stand that under the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Rules, 1987 (for short the 1987 Rules), the BOD of the Bank was competent to affirm the higher qualification as well as the minimum marks or the divisional ranking for entry into the SS cadre. The BODwas not required by law to obtain the approval of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (ROC) while doing all or, any of the above. The then Service Rules (SR) of the Bank were more in the nature of an agreement between the Employer/the Bank with its Employees and, such agreement did not carry with it the status of a statute. Therefore, since SKB was only Madhyamik passed, the recruitment qualification for SS being Class X standard, was first required to be waived by the BOD before the petitioner could be considered for actual appointment.

17. Accordingly, the order dated 18th March, 2016,inter alia, held as follows.

18. First, thatSKB was not against the recruitment process. As such the recruitment process was valid.

19. Second, SKB has accepted his empanelment in the 3rd position of the Reserve Panel. Therefore, both the panel and the position of the petitioner in the panel were valid.

20. Third, a total of 10 candidates were short listed for appointment by the Selection Committee. Out of the 10 candidates, six were recommended for recruitment and four kept in the Reserve Panel. Having regard to the special circumstances associated with the discontinuation of SKB as casual staff with the closure of the Asansol Branch, SKB cannot, at this stage, claim any prejudice connected to and/or arising out of the recruitment of 3 out of the 4 persons in the panel of 2000 subsequently in the year 2010. The petitioner also could not claim that 6 out of the 10 persons were wrongly recruited in 2000.

21. Fourth, the order dated 18th of March, 2016 held that the BOD of the Bank was not required to obtain the prior approval of the ROC before taking the decision to waive the minimum qualification of Class X standard since neither the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act 1983 (the 1983 Act) or its Rules were attracted. Therefore, at the relevant point of recruitment of SSthe BODwas competent to prescribe higher qualificationsas also the minimum marks or divisional ranking, which was so done.

22. Finally, since the petitioner did not challenge the competence of the BOD to take steps vide its Resolution dated 12th August, 2000, at this stage, not only there exists sufficiency of reasons supplied by the Bank in defence of its steps but also, too much of water has flown under the bridge to now attempt to navigate the same.

23. The Private Respondents No. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 to the writ petition have contested through Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, Learned Counsel, by presenting both written and oral pleadings. However, since this Court does not propose to set aside the appointments of the Private Respondentsin view of the rights accrued by them on account of sheer length of their respective appointments, the arguments presented by Mr. Saha Roy are not dealt with in details.

24. Since the primary nature of the allegations levelled by SKB is against the Bank, it would be necessary for the purpose of this discussion to examine the stand of the Bank as presented through Mr. Malay Kumar Roy, Learned Advocate, through both written and oral pleadings.

25. For the sake of avoiding prolixity the stand of the Bank (the Respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 7), in its own words, is reflected as follows:-

"The Respondent No. 2,4,5 to 7 submit further that the board could not consider the writ petitioner for recruitment on the following grounds:

(i) The panel itself was elapsed on 30.5.2002.

(ii) There were four persons in the panel and the name of the petitioner was in the 3rd position.

(iii) No one was recruited from the said panel

(iv) It was not possible to recruit the writ petitioner leaving 2 others above in the said panel.

The Respondent No. 2,4,5 to 7 submit further that they rely on the following Judgements:-

(a) It is well established that inclusion of name in the list of successful candidates does not confer an indefeasible right to be appointed. It has been so held in the Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court of India in Shankarsan Dash versus Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 [LQ/SC/1991/253]

A copy the said judgement is annexed and marked with letter-A

(b) The Respondent No. 2,4,5 to 7 submit further that the Honble Supreme Court of India in union of India versus S.S.Uppal&anr etc. further confirmed the decision of the Honble Court passed in Shankarsan Dash versus Union of India.

A copy the said judgement is annexed and marked with letter-B

The Respondent No. 2,4,5 to 7 submit further that the Honble Supreme Court of India in Rani Laxmibai Kshatriya versus Chand behariKapoor&ors decided that names in the list of selected candidates does not confer any right to be appointed which could be enforced by issuance of a writ mandamus reported in (1998) 7 SCC 469 [LQ/SC/1998/926] /1998 AIR (SC) 3104

A copy the said judgement is annexed and marked with letter-C

(d) The Respondent No. 2,4,5 to 7 submit further that the Honble Supreme Court of India in All India SC & ST Employees Assn. &anr. versus A. Arthur Jeen&ors etc. further confirmed the decision of the Honble Court passed in Shankarsan Dash versus Union of India to the effect that merely because the names of the candidates were included in the panel indicating their provisional selection, they did not acquire any indefeasible right for appointed even against existing vacancies and the State is no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 380 [LQ/SC/2001/979] /2001 AIR (SC) 1851

A copy the said judgement is annexed and marked with letter-D."

26. Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court arrives of the following findings.

(A) That the Bank has, for want of a better expression, playedcat and mice with the Selection Process of SS. The decision making process evident from the record shows utter collective caprice bordering on deliberate mischief to keep SKB out of service, perhaps to pay the price for his forthright posturing.

(B) Now, having observedas above, this Court must proceed to cement its observations from the available evidence on record. It would be therefore useful for this discussion to proceed in a chronological manner.

(C) That at the very outset the order of the MD of the Bank at Page 54 of the writ petition is noticed. The MD was under a duty to reasonably consider SKB claim in compliance of the direction of Court dated 12th of August, 2005 in WP 1935 (W) of 2001/CPAN 347 of 2001.

The MDconcluded by explaining to SKB the local and other problems for his minimum (sic) absorption in the services of the bank. It was also pointed out by the MD/ the Respondent No. 4 to this writ petition that he is not the appointing authority for appointing SS to the Bank. The MD however assured SKB that he (MD) would request the appropriate authority to consider his (SKB) candidature if any vacancy occurred in the SS grade in future, provided the management decided to fill in such vacancies and provided further that he applied for the post. With the above act of tokenism, the MDpurported to show compliance to the order dated 12th August, 2005.

(D) It would be now relevant to reproduce the relevant text of the Resolution of the BOD of the Bank as held on 12th of August, 2000. The Resolution at Agenda No.6 reads as follows:-

"To consider appointment of Sub-Staff as considered by the Appointment Sub-Committee held on 2/8/2000.

The members of the Board considered the Agenda Notes submitted by the Managing Director of the Bank.

The Selection Committee after much deliberations and on the basis of the interview held on 20/7/2000, recommended on the basis of its meeting held on 02/8/2000 the following candidates for appointment in the services of the Bank in the Sub-Staff cadre.

(1) Sri Sankha Ghosh

(2) Sri SrinibasMahato

(3) Sri Subhas Ch. Mehta

(4) Sri Asish Banerjee

(5) Sri Banibrata Mishra

(6) Sri RanjanMaity

Further a panel of the following candidates is also prepared out of the candidates appeared for interview:

(1) Smt. SubhadraBauri

(2) Sri PulinBehariNayak

(3) Sri SubodhBhadra

(4) Sri Sib Sadhan Roy.

The Managing Director pointed out that the first 5 (five) candidates selected are Graduates, whereas the Service Rules of the Bank have prescribed that no person shall be recruited as Sub-Staff having qualification of more than Class-X standard. He also pointed that if the Board of this Bank would decide to enhance the qualifications of Sub-Staff in the interest of the business of the Bank, that shall be subject to the approval of the R.C.S., West Bengal.

After much deliberation it was desolved that recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted by the Board for the purpose of selection of Sub-Staff is as contained in its meeting dated 02/08/2000 be and is hereby approved. It was further resolved that the over-age of Sri SrinibasMahato being 38 years 10 months as pointed out by the Managing Director in the agenda note, would stand nullified because of the cabinet decision of the State Govt. as contained funder Notification No.-3900-F dated 19/5/98 raising the upper-age limit form 35 years to 37 years and further relaxation of upper age limit in respect of OBC candidates by 3 years as contained under Notification No.-378-F dated 10/1/97 which are supposed to be incorporated in the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Rules, 1987 with required amendment. The Board further resolved that such relaxations be also incorporated in the Service Rules of the Bank in consultation with the Employees Association. The Board also resolved that in the context of intense competition because of deregulated market economy there is an urgent need for having qualified Sub-Staff to undertake field level work like securing loan proposals, appraisal thereof, Marketing of deposit products and servicing thereof and such other outdoor and indoor work. It also felt the Bank in consultation with the Employees Association for waiving qualification limit of Sub-Staff in the above context.

It was further resolved that Managing Director be and is hereby authorized to issue the appointment letters to be selected candidates with the approval of the Chairman.

Sri P.K. Bhattacharyya, Vice-Chairman, Sri SudhiRanjanChowdhury, Sri Durga Das Ghosh & Sri MatiarRahaman, members at the Board of Directors abstained from participating in the deliberation and decision making on this agendum."

(E) Therefore, the above quoted Resolution does not make apparent the rationale for dividing the selectees into two panels of six (6) and four (4) each. No merit position is indicated. Marks obtained in the so called viva voce are not notified. No criteria attached to the preparation of the panels is mentioned. There is only a general discussion on what the BOD could do and could not do connected to waiver of qualifications etc.

Having split the selectees into panels of six (6) and four (4) each, the BOD after much deliberation resolved that the prescribed qualification for recruitment of SS be relaxed since the bank having regard to the deregulated market economy is in urgent need of qualified SS. Therefore, the BOD further resolved that both qualification and age be relaxed/ waived.

(F) At this stage this Court must pause to notice that SKB has also read up to the Class X standard being Madhyamik qualified and therefore was in a position to claim the entry level qualification for SS stipulated by the Bank. This Court must further notice that at the time of his first appointment in 1998 in casual capacity,SKB not only met the educational qualification criterion but was also in possession of previous work experience having worked at the South India Cooperative Credit Society, Kolkata (at page 47 of the writ petition).

It however transpires that neither the entry level qualification of SKB or, his work experience in a similar area, cut much ice with the BOD of the Bank which initially decided to offer appointmentsto the panel of six (6) selectees by relaxing both age and educational qualifications.

(G) The token so-called reasoned order of the MD dated the 2nd of September, 2005 assuring SKB of being considered for an appointment in future, has been in the nature of an exercise to keep the MD out of anticipated contempt proceedings. The assurance is conveniently forgotten and, so is his name in the panel of four (4) created in 2000. The order dated 18th March, 2016 does not blink an eyelid by treating SKB as non-qualified for appointment in 2010 citing closure of the Asansol Branch. The fact that SKBwas never delisted from the panel of four (4) out of which 1, 2 and 4 were appointed in 2010 read in the light of the MD assurance vide his order dated 2nd September, 2005, were cast to the winds by the Bank intent on pursuing its naked objective of appointing everybody else similarly circumstanced but the writ petitioner/ SKB.

(H) WP II filed by SKB on the issue being WP 8861 (W) of 2006 was ultimately disposed of by the Honble Single Bench vide order dated 17th of August, 2015 wherein the stand of Learned Counsel for the State/Respondents was recorded as follows (at Pages 71 and 72 of the writ petition):-

"Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the State submits there was no approval sought by the Bank regarding waiver of Qualification in thematter of it appointing sub-staff or for that matter nay appointment to be given by the Bank as sub-staff either in the year 2000 or in the year 2010.

In the facts and circumstances aforesaid, the respondent no.3, General Manager Administration of the West Bengal Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited, as submitted by Mr. Roy to be the appropriate Authority, is directed to consider the claim made by the petitioner of having worked as casual employee for being regularized under the existing service Rules of the Bank. It is clear that there has neither been any waiver of qualification regarding appointment of regular sub-staff of the Bank nor any appointment by the selection process taken place in the years 2000 and 2010. Keeping that in mind, the said respondent will consider and dispose of the claim of the petitioner upon giving him an opportunity of hearing, by a reasoned order to be communicated to him, within a period of four weeks form the date of communication of his representation and a copy of this order to the said respondent.

The writ petition is disposed of."

(I) The Bank had gone on record videthe order dated 17th of August, 2015 denying appointment to SKBon the ground of alleged break in his service. On the other hand, Learned State Counsel demolished the resolution of the BOD dated 12th of August, 2000 by taking the position,as recorded by the solemn order dated 17th August, 2015,that no relaxation/waiver of entry level qualification for appointment to the post of SS was sought for by the Bank or, approved by the State either in 2000 or in 2010. In such view of the matter appointmentsmade through the BOD of the present Private Respondents would be illegal and hence voidable.

(J) The Court,videits order of 17th of August, 2015, therefore directed consideration of the claim of SKB to absorption by making it clear that such absorption would be considered as if there has been no waiver of qualification connected to appointment ofSS nor, appointmentshave been extended in the years 2000 and 2010.

(K) The order dated 17th August, 2015 having attained finality, it stands to reason that the appointment of the Private Respondents stand in violation of the order and the recorded stand taken by Learned State Counsel. Accordingly, the said appointments, if called for, could be the subject of close judicial scrutiny. However, notwithstanding the vulnerabilities attached to the appointments extended by the Bank to 9 out of the 10 selectees/the private respondents, the Bank has continued to defend the appointments and resist the appointment of SKB.

(L) In the above light of the matter, the order impugned dated 18th March, 2016 of the General Manager (GM) Administration of the Bank reiterating the stand taken by the BOD in 2000 in the teeth of the order of Court dated 17th August, 2015, borders on almost contumacious conduct.

(M) This Court also finds that by the order of theMD/ the respondent No. 4 dated the 2nd of September, 2005 ,SKB was assured of consideration against future vacancies, only for the assurance to be summarily dropped citing the technicality of closure of the Asansol Branch. The legal position was deliberately overlooked which entitled SKB to be treated as part of the panel of four (4) from which appointments were made in 2010. The further stand taken by the Bank that no panel existed beyond 30th May, 2002 amounts to an absurdity considering that appointments to three out of four from the same panel were granted in 2010, i.e. after the lapse of eight years from the alleged expiry of the panel.

(N) Notwithstanding the utter perversity in the decision making process of the Bank, this Court does not intend to touch the appointments of the private respondents which have now continued for long since 2000 & 2010 respectively. At the same time this Court finds merit in the proposition that SKB/ the writ petitioner, having been appointed in 1998, has been throughout equally circumstanced, if not more so, qua the private respondents. In the case of the petitioner the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment under the law has been brazenly tossed around like a plastic toy.

27. In the backdrop of the above discussion, this Court directs as follows:-

(I) That the Bank shall take steps within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order to the MD/ the Respondent No.4 to approveSKB/ the writ petitioner to the cadre of SS.

(II) The appointment, as directed above, shall be treated to be notional on and from 2010 and, prospective in terms of actual benefits on and from the date of his appointment.

(III) The petitioner shall be treated qua his service record to have been in service from the date of appointment in service of the Private Respondent No. 11/ Shib Sadhan Roy, at serial No.4 of the panel of four as per Resolution of the BOD dated 12th August, 2000.

(IV) On the completion of eight weeks from the date of receipt of communication of this order by the MD/ the Respondent No. 4, the petitioner if not already appointed, shall be paid a consolidated sum equivalent to the basic pay of ShibSadhan Roy the private respondent No. 11and a 2010 appointee. Such consolidated sum shall continue to be paid to the petitioner/SKB till the date of his actual appointment.

(V) The order impugned dated 18th March, 2016 stands thusset aside.

28. W.P. No. 12458 (W) of 2016 stands accordingly allowed.

29. Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgement, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.