Calcutta High Court Prosanta Kumar Mondal-vs-State Of West Bengal & Ors on 28 July, 2009
Author: Pranab Kumar Deb
W.P. No.1809 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
PROSANTA KUMAR MONDAL.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Mr. Sadananda Ganguly with Mr. Ashim Kumar Haldar & Mr. Pradip Kumar Neogi, Advocates, … for the writ petitioner.
Md. Aslam Khan with Mr. Kanti Kumar
… for the respondents.
The Hon’ble Justice
PRANAB KUMAR DEB
The present writ petition has been filed in view of the inaction on the part of the respondents in issuing appointment letter in favour of the writ petitioner following an advertisement being issued for filling up the post of Additional Sahayak in the district of Paschim Midnapore. The writ petitioner also applied for the aforesaid post. In filling up of the relevant column no.14, he answered that the particular query was not applicable. The query in the aforesaid column was whether he had been arrested, detained or convicted by a Court for commission of any offence.
It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the factum of arrest was deliberately suppressed by the writ petitioner and as such, no appointment letter was issued in his favour.
Mr. Sadananda Ganguly, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, has submitted that since the writ petitioner surrendered before the Court for institution of a case under 498A of the Indian Penal Code and was released on bail on the same date, the writ petitioner cannot be said to have been arrested. Reliance has been placed on the case of State of Hayana & Ors. vs. Dinesh Kumar (Civil Appeal Nos.84 & 85 of 2008) to impress upon the Court that if a person is granted bail on surrender before the Court, non-disclosure of such fact would not tantamount to deliberate suppression of facts as because he may be under the mistaken impression that he has not been arrested. A commoner may apt to make mistake regarding arrest and detention. Since the writ petitioner was released on bail following grant of anticipatory bail, he nurtured the view that he had not been arrested. Acting on such impression, he disclosed that he had never been arrested. Such assertion, as has been held in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Dinesh Kumar supra, would not tantamount to deliberate suppression of facts by him.
Accordingly, in disposing of the present writ petition, direction is given to the respondent nos. 3 to 6 to issue appointment letter in favour of the writ petitioner, if he is found eligible and selected, in accordance with law, within a period of 15 days from the date of communication of this order. 3
With the above directions the writ petition, being W.P. No.1809 of 2008, is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (PRANAB KUMAR DEB, J.)
Assistant Registrar (C.R.)