Post Of Stenographer, Bench Clerk Are Sensitive For District Judiciary; Engaging Them On Contractual Basis Will Create Difficulties: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court directed the State to not proceed with recruitment notifications that were issued to recruit stenographers and bench clerks of the District Judiciary on a contractual basis while observing that such posts are sensitive for the smooth functioning of the District Judiciary and engagement on contractual basis will create difficulties.
The Court held thus while noting that any person engaged on a contractual basis cannot be fastened with any responsibility or liability like a regular employee for any misconduct.
The Court was hearing Writ Petitions where the West Bengal Courts’ Employees’ Association and its General Secretary, while representing the interest of the employees, challenged two recruitment notifications dated February 28, 2024 and March 14, 2024.
The bench of Justice Arindam Mukherjee observed, “…the post of ‘Stenographer’, ‘Bench Clerk (Peshkar)’ are very sensitive post for the smooth functioning of the District Judiciary...Engagement on contractual basis in such sensitive post are likely to create more difficulties than aiding in smooth functioning of the District Judiciary..”
Advocate Firdous Samim appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Sirsanya Bandopadhyay appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The two notifications that were challenged by the petitioners were issued for hiring staff in Fast Track and Family Courts in North and South 24-Parganas. The petitioners argued that the West Bengal District Court Rules, 2015, do not provide for contractual positions or the advertised posts, including "English Steno-Typist'' and "Bench Clerk". It was contended that sanctioned posts like Stenographer Grades and Bench Clerk Grades are to be filled through promotion or specific recruitment processes and not by contractual engagement. Hence, they requested the Court to quash the notifications and stay any actions that were taken under them.
The Court noted that the State of West Bengal in view of the recommendations made by the Justice Shetty Commission and the directions of the Supreme Court of India is duty-bound to provide infrastructural support to the District Judiciary for its smooth functioning. “Infrastructural support includes providing employees and staff to assist in the functioning of the District Judiciary.”, the Court remarked.
The Court expressed anguish over the fact that despite assurances State did not conduct any recruitment process for recruiting regular employees against the sanctioned posts that were lying vacant.
While noting that the smooth functioning of the District Judiciary in the absence of regular staff and employees is likely to suffer and cannot be either cured or supplemented by contractual engagements, the Court observed, “The State Government cannot remain a spectator and make contractual appointments with the plea to improve the situation in a continuous manner without conducting the regular recruitment process.”
Accordingly, the Court said that two employment notifications cannot be allowed to proceed any further as according to the Court if any step were taken in terms of the said two notifications the same are likely to create multiplicity to judicial procedures.
Cause Title: West Bengal Courts’ Employees’ Association Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. Firdous Samim, Adv. Gopa Biswas, Adv. Payel Shome, Adv. Sampriti Saha and Adv. Avijit Kar
Respondent: Adv. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Adv. Deboprio Karan, Adv. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, Adv. Parna Roy Chowdhury, Adv. Saikat Banerjee and Adv. Juin Dutta Chakraborty
