{"id":44886,"date":"2008-11-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tridip-kumar-dingal-and-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-on-4-november-2008"},"modified":"2016-08-02T03:52:26","modified_gmt":"2016-08-01T22:22:26","slug":"tridip-kumar-dingal-and-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-on-4-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tridip-kumar-dingal-and-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-on-4-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Tridip Kumar Dingal And Ors vs State Of West Bengal And Ors on 4 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Tridip Kumar Dingal And Ors vs State Of West Bengal And Ors on 4 November, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: C.K. Thakker, D.K. Jain<\/div>\n
                                                      REPORTABLE\n\n            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n             CIVL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n         CIVIL APPEAL NOs.           OF 2008\n                    ARISING OUT OF\nSPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOs. 14820-14825 OF 2005\n\n\nTRIDIP KUMAR DINGAL & ORS.          ... APPELLANTS\n\nVERSUS\n\nSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.         ... RESPONDENTS\n\n                         WITH\n\n         CIVIL APPEAL NOs.            OF 2008\n                    ARISING OUT OF\nSPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOs. 10507-10509 OF 2005\n\n\nUJJAL MAITY & ANR.                  ... APPELLANTS\n\nVERSUS\n\nKALYAN BAGCHI & ORS.                ... RESPONDENTS\n\n                        WITH\n         CIVIL APPEAL NOs.            OF 2008\n                    ARISING OUT OF\n SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOs. 9531-9532 OF 2005\n\n\nMUKSUDUR RAHMAN & ORS.              ... APPELLANTS\n\nVERSUS\n\nKALYAN BAGCHI & ORS.                ... RESPONDENTS\n            J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
                                                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
C.K. THAKKER, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.         Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.         The   present         appeals      have         been<\/p>\n
instituted by the appellants being aggrieved<\/p>\n
and dissatisfied with the judgment and order<\/p>\n
passed by the High Court of Calcutta on August<\/p>\n
11, 2003 in WPSR No. 630 of 2002 and companion<\/p>\n
matters and an order, dated January 06, 2005 in<\/p>\n
CAP No. 1006 of 2004 and cognate petitions.<\/p>\n
3.         The case has a checkered history. In<\/p>\n
early   nineties      of   the     last     century,        the<\/p>\n
Department of Health & Family Welfare, State of<\/p>\n
West Bengal suffered acute shortage and non-<\/p>\n
availability     of   adequate     member     of     Medical<\/p>\n
Technologists.        In their absence, laboratory<\/p>\n
and investigation work in Government Hospitals,<\/p>\n
Laboratories, Medical Colleges, Primary Health<\/p>\n
Centres,    Blood     Banks,     etc.      could     not     be<\/p>\n
performed satisfactorily.          The Government was<\/p>\n
worrying as to distress and agony of patients
\n                                                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
visiting     hospitals        and       dispensaries.             It,<\/p>\n
therefore,        took   an       initiative      to       fill     up<\/p>\n
requisite     number         of    vacancies          of    Medical<\/p>\n
Technologists by taking up the matter with the<\/p>\n
Employment Exchange. On October 5, 1993, the<\/p>\n
Assistant         Director         of        Health        Services<\/p>\n
(Administration) issued a Memo to the Director<\/p>\n
of Employment Exchange for sponsoring names of<\/p>\n
candidates for the post of Medical Technologist<\/p>\n
(Laboratory) having requisite qualification of<\/p>\n
Madhyamik     (Secondary)\/Higher               Secondary          with<\/p>\n
Science along with a certificate of Laboratory<\/p>\n
Technology        from   a    recognized        University          or<\/p>\n
Institution. The post was in the basic pay of<\/p>\n
Rs.1040-1920 with other admissible allowances.<\/p>\n
It was stated that the candidates were required<\/p>\n
to work in any District of West Bengal.<\/p>\n
4.          Pursuant to the above Memo and receipt<\/p>\n
of names from Employment Exchange, a written<\/p>\n
examination was held on August 20, 1995. A list<\/p>\n
of   1070    candidates           was    published         who     had<\/p>\n
cleared     the    examination.         On    August       1,    1996,
\n                                                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
oral    interview        of    the    candidates       who    had<\/p>\n
cleared        written    examination         was    taken    and<\/p>\n
provisional select list was prepared which was<\/p>\n
published on December 18, 1998. The empanelment<\/p>\n
was made on the basis of marks obtained by the<\/p>\n
candidates at oral interview.\n<\/p>\n
5.           The candidates who could not get entry<\/p>\n
in the select list prepared by the authorities<\/p>\n
on     the     basis     of   marks     obtained      at     oral<\/p>\n
interview,             approached            West          Bengal<\/p>\n
Administrative             Tribunal,          Calcutta         by<\/p>\n
instituting Original Application No. 1023 of<\/p>\n
1999.     It     was     contended     by     them    that    the<\/p>\n
authorities had committed an error of law in<\/p>\n
totally        ignoring       the     marks     obtained       by<\/p>\n
candidates at written examination and panel was<\/p>\n
prepared only on the basis of marks obtained by<\/p>\n
the    candidates        at   oral    interview      which    was<\/p>\n
illegal      and   contrary     to    law.    Preparation      of<\/p>\n
panel, therefore, was arbitrary, unreasonable<\/p>\n
and was liable to be set aside. Interim order<\/p>\n
was passed by the Tribunal on April 9, 1999
\n                                                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
granting    liberty       to     the    authorities            to     make<\/p>\n
appointment        of         candidates            selected           and<\/p>\n
empanelled subject to the result in Original<\/p>\n
Application. Liberty was also granted to the<\/p>\n
parties    to     move    the    Tribunal           for    variation,<\/p>\n
vacation or modification of the order.<\/p>\n
6.         Being aggrieved by the interim order<\/p>\n
dated April 9, 1999 granting liberty to the<\/p>\n
authorities       to     make     appointment             subject       to<\/p>\n
final      outcome        of      the        proceedings,              the<\/p>\n
appellants        approached           the     High        Court       of<\/p>\n
Calcutta     by    filing        WPST        No.     199       of    1999<\/p>\n
contending       that    they     had        been    treated          with<\/p>\n
discrimination          and     different          interim          orders<\/p>\n
were passed in different matters. The petition<\/p>\n
was disposed of by the High Court by issuing<\/p>\n
certain directions. The Tribunal was requested<\/p>\n
to   dispose      of    the    main     matter       expeditiously<\/p>\n
preferably before January 15, 2000.<\/p>\n
7.         By judgment and order dated June 30,<\/p>\n
2000,     main    matter       was     disposed           of    by    the<\/p>\n
Tribunal. Merit list which was prepared on the
\n                                                                           6<\/span><\/p>\n
basis of marks obtained by candidates at oral<\/p>\n
interview was set aside and a direction was<\/p>\n
issued by the Tribunal to prepare fresh merit<\/p>\n
list of candidates by adding the marks obtained<\/p>\n
by them in both (i) written examination, and<\/p>\n
(ii) oral interview, excluding those who were<\/p>\n
already in service. It was observed that in the<\/p>\n
oral test 40% was fixed by the Committee as<\/p>\n
pass marks. The said standard should be applied<\/p>\n
on the total marks as pass marks. Appointment<\/p>\n
should     be    given       from       the        fresh    panel    so<\/p>\n
prepared        in     order       of        merit     subject        to<\/p>\n
reservation and to fill up vacant posts. Since<\/p>\n
substantial period had gone in the meanwhile, a<\/p>\n
direction was also issued that age bar will not<\/p>\n
come in the way of the candidates in getting<\/p>\n
appointment.         The     persons         who    were    selected,<\/p>\n
appointed        and        were        in     employment           were<\/p>\n
protected.           It was also observed that every<\/p>\n
appointment          would     be       subject        to     medical<\/p>\n
examination           and      police          verification.           A<\/p>\n
direction was also issued that all appointments
\n                                                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
should be given within a period of four months<\/p>\n
from July 1, 2000. The case was thus finally<\/p>\n
disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
8.        The      decision     of     the    Tribunal      was<\/p>\n
challenged in writ petitions in the High Court<\/p>\n
and the High Court, by judgment and order dated<\/p>\n
November 27, 2000, disposed of the petitions.<\/p>\n
It    observed    that   the    question       of   retaining<\/p>\n
those candidates who had been appointed, must<\/p>\n
be    considered      afresh    by    the    Tribunal     since<\/p>\n
Tribunal had not assigned any reason as to why<\/p>\n
they should be permitted to be continued in<\/p>\n
service. According to the High Court, if the<\/p>\n
Tribunal was of the view that the selection<\/p>\n
process was vitiated, no such sympathy could<\/p>\n
have been shown to the candidates selected in<\/p>\n
the    said     selection      process.       It    was    also<\/p>\n
observed that the question as to whether 40%<\/p>\n
marks could have been allotted to the oral test<\/p>\n
also    ought    to   have     been   considered      by   the<\/p>\n
Tribunal keeping in view various decisions of<\/p>\n
the Apex Court. Taking note of the grievance of
\n                                                                        8<\/span><\/p>\n
some    of     the      petitioners,         the    High        Court<\/p>\n
observed       that     the      Tribunal     would       consider<\/p>\n
whether      100%       roster      had     been    maintained.<\/p>\n
Request was made to the Tribunal to dispose of<\/p>\n
the matter at an early date preferably within a<\/p>\n
period of two months from the communication of<\/p>\n
the    order.      That   is     how   the    first      round     of<\/p>\n
litigation came to an end.\n<\/p>\n
9.           The     Tribunal       again     considered          the<\/p>\n
matter. The main grievance of the applicants<\/p>\n
before the Tribunal, who were unsuccessful in<\/p>\n
written examination or oral interview was that<\/p>\n
the    marks    obtained       by   them     in    both       written<\/p>\n
examination and oral interview ought to have<\/p>\n
been combined by the respondent authorities in<\/p>\n
preparation of the merit list and panel ought<\/p>\n
to have been prepared on that basis which was<\/p>\n
not done. Since the selection was made only on<\/p>\n
the    basis       of     oral      interview,          the     whole<\/p>\n
selection       process       was   vitiated       in    law.     The<\/p>\n
authorities ought to have considered marks of<\/p>\n
both, written examination and oral interview
\n                                                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
and ought to have prepared merit list and in<\/p>\n
that case, most of the applicants would have<\/p>\n
been empanelled by finding place in the merit<\/p>\n
list. It was also contended that the respondent<\/p>\n
authorities had followed a `pick and choose’<\/p>\n
policy by including names of their `kiths and<\/p>\n
kins’. It was alleged that certain applicants<\/p>\n
had cleared both written test as well as viva<\/p>\n
voce and yet their names were not included in<\/p>\n
the   panel   prepared      for    the    selection.    Other<\/p>\n
grievances were also made.\n<\/p>\n
10.      The         case     of          the      respondent<\/p>\n
authorities, on the other hand, was that those<\/p>\n
who had become successful in both written test<\/p>\n
and oral interview were selected and they were<\/p>\n
appointed in due course. They were discharging<\/p>\n
their    duties        as     Medical           Technologists<\/p>\n
faithfully since three years and had acquired<\/p>\n
right to continue as such and they could not be<\/p>\n
deprived of their livelihood for no fault on<\/p>\n
their part at the belated stage. It was also<\/p>\n
contended     that     once       those    candidates     who
\n                                                                    10<\/span><\/p>\n
participated in the process and could not get<\/p>\n
themselves       selected,     had       no   right    to   raise<\/p>\n
objection against such process which had been<\/p>\n
undertaken in accordance with law. They were<\/p>\n
estopped by the doctrine of estoppel by turning<\/p>\n
round     and    challenging        it    being      illegal   or<\/p>\n
unlawful.\n<\/p>\n
11.        It was also contended by the counsel<\/p>\n
for the State that since posts which were to be<\/p>\n
filled    in    were   very    limited        (80)    and   large<\/p>\n
number     of    candidates     applied          (approximately<\/p>\n
4000 candidates), the State authorities had no<\/p>\n
alternative but to screen candidates by holding<\/p>\n
written examination. Such a `screening test’<\/p>\n
was perfectly legal, valid and it could not<\/p>\n
have been objected. In other words, according<\/p>\n
to the State, written examination was in the<\/p>\n
nature of `elimination test’. So far as oral<\/p>\n
interview was concerned, it was submitted that<\/p>\n
the Selection Committee was consisting of high<\/p>\n
ranking        officials      who        acted     impartially,<\/p>\n
objectively and without malice. The allegation
\n                                                                            11<\/span><\/p>\n
that the members of Selection Committee were<\/p>\n
instrumental       in     the     matter        of    selection        of<\/p>\n
their    close     relations        was        totally       baseless.<\/p>\n
Aggrieved candidates could not give any name of<\/p>\n
alleged close relatives of the members of the<\/p>\n
Selection         Committee.         It        was,         therefore,<\/p>\n
submitted       that    the     action     of        the    State    was<\/p>\n
wholly legal and valid.\n<\/p>\n
12.        The     Tribunal         considered              the     rival<\/p>\n
contentions of the parties and observed that as<\/p>\n
against         recruitment               of         80           Medical<\/p>\n
Technologists,         about      4000     candidates             offered<\/p>\n
their respective candidature for appointment.<\/p>\n
It was unprecedented and perplexing situation.<\/p>\n
In      absence        of       Recruitment                Rules,      an<\/p>\n
administrative          decision         was      taken        by     the<\/p>\n
Government          for           screening            unsuccessful<\/p>\n
candidates by holding written test which was<\/p>\n
legal     and      proper.         About        2500        candidates<\/p>\n
appeared     at    the      written        test       out     of    4000<\/p>\n
applicants and a list was prepared eliminating<\/p>\n
those    candidates         who    had    obtained          less     than
\n                                                                        12<\/span><\/p>\n
qualifying        marks          (40%)       at     the     written<\/p>\n
examination. Since the object of the test was<\/p>\n
only     to    oust     huge        number     of    unsuccessful<\/p>\n
candidates,        there         was      no      illegality      in<\/p>\n
undertaking the said exercise. A final list of<\/p>\n
eligible and qualified candidates was prepared,<\/p>\n
who were called for oral interview. According<\/p>\n
to the Tribunal, the purpose of written test<\/p>\n
was     only      to        eliminate        huge      number     of<\/p>\n
unsuccessful candidates and it was not a case<\/p>\n
of selection based on written examination and<\/p>\n
oral interview. There was no question of `pick<\/p>\n
and     choose’        or    showing        discrimination         as<\/p>\n
alleged.\n<\/p>\n
13.           The Tribunal also noted that about 190<\/p>\n
candidates       had        already       joined       service    as<\/p>\n
Medical       Technologists         and    they     were    working<\/p>\n
since more than three years. Since the entire<\/p>\n
selection       process       had    been      found      legal   and<\/p>\n
lawful, there was no question of cancellation<\/p>\n
of     appointments         of    the     candidates       who    had<\/p>\n
already joined service.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                     13<\/span><\/p>\n
14.        Moreover,          unsuccessful            candidates<\/p>\n
having participated in the selection process<\/p>\n
without any objection or protest, could not be<\/p>\n
allowed     to    turn       around        and   challenge     the<\/p>\n
selection        as    illegal        or     null     and    void.<\/p>\n
Following a decision of this Court in Swaran<\/p>\n
Lata v. Union of India,<\/a> (1979) 3 SCC 165, the<\/p>\n
Tribunal    held      that    the     applicants      could    not<\/p>\n
`approbate and reprobate at the same time’.<\/p>\n
15.        Taking overall view of the matter, the<\/p>\n
Tribunal found that the selection process was<\/p>\n
bona fide and in accordance with law and it<\/p>\n
was,     therefore,       required          to   be    approved.<\/p>\n
Appointments which had already been made by the<\/p>\n
authorities of 190 candidates who had gained<\/p>\n
experience of more than three years in the work<\/p>\n
of investigation entrusted to them also could<\/p>\n
not be disturbed. Accordingly, a direction was<\/p>\n
issued     to    the     State      authorities        to    offer<\/p>\n
appointments to successful candidates in the<\/p>\n
waiting     list       subject        to     availability      of
\n                                                            14<\/span><\/p>\n
vacancies      following   medical   examination      and<\/p>\n
police verification.\n<\/p>\n
16.          The above judgment and order was again<\/p>\n
challenged by the unsuccessful candidates in<\/p>\n
the High Court and by the impugned order, the<\/p>\n
High Court allowed the petitions. It observed<\/p>\n
that the Tribunal had committed an error of law<\/p>\n
in    not   directing   the   authorities   to    prepare<\/p>\n
merit list on the basis of marks obtained in<\/p>\n
the written test as well as viva voce. It was<\/p>\n
urged that if the marks obtained at the written<\/p>\n
test had been kept out of consideration, proper<\/p>\n
selection could not be said to have been made<\/p>\n
and    the     entire   panel    would   be      invalid.<\/p>\n
Referring to Raj Kumar & Ors. v. Shakti Raj &<\/p>\n
Ors., (1997) 9 SCC 527 and Praveen Singh v.<\/p>\n
State of Punjab & Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 633, the<\/p>\n
High Court issued the following directions;<\/p>\n
             “We hold that a fresh panel of
\n      Medical   Technologies  has   to   be
\n      prepared by the State Government on
\n      the basis of qualifying marks both in
\n      the written test as well as in oral
\n      test. We, therefore, dispose of all
\n                                                         15<\/span><\/p>\n
      these writ applications by giving the
\n      following directions:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
i.    The State Government must prepare
\n      within a period of six weeks from the
\n      date of service of this order upon
\n      them   a   fresh   panel   of   Medical
\n      Technologies    on    the   basis    of
\n      qualifying marks in the already held
\n      written and oral test for appointment
\n      to the post of Medical Technologists;<\/p>\n
ii. 40% of such marks including the marks
\n    obtained in written and oral test
\n    should be the qualifying marks and
\n    persons who have not obtained 40%
\n    marks need not be empanelled;\n<\/p>\n
iii. After   preparation  of   such  panel,
\n     appointment is to be made on the basis
\n     of such panel;\n<\/p>\n
iv. While preparing the panel the rule
\n    relating to reservation must be taken
\n    care of;\n<\/p>\n
v.    In the matter of preparation of panel
\n      no candidate who otherwise qualifies
\n      in the panel on the basis of the test
\n      made above should be disqualified
\n      solely on the ground of age;\n<\/p>\n
      We are giving these directions since
\n      controversy is pending for all these
\n      years and for which the petitioner or
\n      candidates are not to be blamed”.<\/p>\n
17.       It was also made clear that if those<\/p>\n
candidates who had already been appointed did<\/p>\n
not   find   place   in   the   panel,   consequential
\n                                                                        16<\/span><\/p>\n
orders could be made by the State Government<\/p>\n
but   those     who    were        in    the     panel    could    be<\/p>\n
accommodated          if      by        reason      of     existing<\/p>\n
vacancies, they could be accommodated.<\/p>\n
18.        It       appears      that      certain       candidates<\/p>\n
approached this Court by filing Special Leave<\/p>\n
Petition      (Civil)         No.       (CC)      3728     of    2004<\/p>\n
challenging the judgment and order dated August<\/p>\n
11,   2003.     A    two    Judge       Bench     of     this   Court<\/p>\n
dismissed       the        Special        Leave     Petition      as<\/p>\n
withdrawn on April 29, 2004.\n<\/p>\n
19.        Nothing         was     done     by    the     appellant<\/p>\n
herein immediately against the order passed by<\/p>\n
the High Court on August 11, 2003.                       It further<\/p>\n
appears that implementation of the order passed<\/p>\n
by the High Court was sought and a contempt<\/p>\n
petition was filed by petitioners inter alia,<\/p>\n
alleging        that       the      authorities           had     not<\/p>\n
implemented the directions issued by the High<\/p>\n
Court. A prayer was, therefore, made to call<\/p>\n
upon the respondents\/ contemnors to show cause<\/p>\n
why they should not be committed to prison or
\n                                                              17<\/span><\/p>\n
otherwise dealt with for having violated the<\/p>\n
judgment and order dated August 11, 2003 passed<\/p>\n
by the High Court and why they should not be<\/p>\n
directed to prepare fresh panel in accordance<\/p>\n
with those directions.\n<\/p>\n
20.         An affidavit was filed by the State<\/p>\n
asserting that they had followed the directions<\/p>\n
of the Court. It was stated that there was some<\/p>\n
delay on the part of the authorities because of<\/p>\n
procedural difficulties and practical problems<\/p>\n
but    it   was   unintentional.      They   were    always<\/p>\n
ready and willing to carry out the directions<\/p>\n
of the Court. An unconditional apology was also<\/p>\n
tendered by the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
21.         The High Court passed an interim order<\/p>\n
on December 21, 2004.           Reading of the order<\/p>\n
made it clear that the Court was not inclined<\/p>\n
to issue any direction for removal\/termination<\/p>\n
of    services    of   66   persons   who    were   working<\/p>\n
since 3-4 years. The Court directed the State<\/p>\n
to make inquiries and to report to the Court on<\/p>\n
January 06, 2005 as to the exact number of
\n                                                                18<\/span><\/p>\n
vacancies      which        were   available     for      the<\/p>\n
appointment of the panel to be prepared. It<\/p>\n
also directed the State to inform the Court<\/p>\n
whether      nine     vacancies     which      had     become<\/p>\n
defunct, could be revived.\n<\/p>\n
22.        On January 06, 2005, again the matter<\/p>\n
was placed before the Court as per the order<\/p>\n
dated December 21, 2004. The High Court heard<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the parties and noted that<\/p>\n
a panel of 586 candidates had been prepared on<\/p>\n
the basis of 40% marks obtained both in the<\/p>\n
written test as well as oral interview. It also<\/p>\n
observed     that      sixty-six     persons     who     were<\/p>\n
appointed should be allowed to be accommodated<\/p>\n
by granting liberty to the State Government in<\/p>\n
the manner it thought best without disturbing<\/p>\n
their seniority or continuity of their service.<\/p>\n
It directed that the remaining vacancies should<\/p>\n
be filled up on the basis of seniority position<\/p>\n
from   the    panel    of    586   candidates.       Contempt<\/p>\n
petition was accordingly disposed of.
\n                                                                    19<\/span><\/p>\n
23.       The appellants being aggrieved by the<\/p>\n
directions of the High Court have approached<\/p>\n
this Court.\n<\/p>\n
24.       There was long delay of 559 days in<\/p>\n
approaching this Court by the appellants so far<\/p>\n
as the order passed in the Writ Petition. On<\/p>\n
July 15, 2005, notice was issued by this Court<\/p>\n
on    Special   Leave    Petition        as   well     as      on<\/p>\n
application for condonation of delay. No stay<\/p>\n
of appointment, however, was granted pursuant<\/p>\n
to the impugned order of the High court and<\/p>\n
liberty   was    granted     to    the    State      to     make<\/p>\n
appointments.      It was, however, clarified that<\/p>\n
the appointments if any shall be subject to<\/p>\n
further   orders      that   may   be     passed       in    the<\/p>\n
Special    Leave      Petition.         The     matter        was<\/p>\n
thereafter      adjourned     from       time     to        time.<\/p>\n
Affidavits and further affidavits were filed.<\/p>\n
Considering     the     nature     of     litigation          and<\/p>\n
administrative problems of the State Government<\/p>\n
on one hand and future of several candidates on<\/p>\n
the other hand, it was thought fit to dispose
\n                                                                          20<\/span><\/p>\n
of     the    matter           finally      and   accordingly       the<\/p>\n
Registry was directed to place the matter for<\/p>\n
final disposal on a non-miscellaneous day. That<\/p>\n
is how the matter has been placed before us.<\/p>\n
25.           We have heard learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
parties.\n<\/p>\n
26.           The learned counsel for the appellants<\/p>\n
contended that the orders passed by the High<\/p>\n
Court        were        not     in      consonance       with     law.<\/p>\n
Moreover,       even           those     orders     had     not    been<\/p>\n
complied with by the authorities. The orders<\/p>\n
are, therefore, liable to be set aside. It was<\/p>\n
stated that the action of the authorities of<\/p>\n
allocation          of    more       than   15%   marks     for    oral<\/p>\n
interview was illegal and contrary to the law<\/p>\n
laid down by this Court. Preparation of merit<\/p>\n
list    and     panel           of    selected     candidates       was<\/p>\n
arbitrary and unreasonable. The action of the<\/p>\n
authorities and of the Tribunal as well as of<\/p>\n
the High Court of protecting 66 selected and<\/p>\n
appointed candidates was unlawful and no such<\/p>\n
direction       could           have     been     issued.     It    was
\n                                                                          21<\/span><\/p>\n
submitted       that        since     the       action        of    the<\/p>\n
respondent       authorities          was      illegal        and   the<\/p>\n
Tribunal as well as the High Court were wrong<\/p>\n
in    protecting       illegally       selected          candidates,<\/p>\n
the     doctrine            of      estoppel,            waiver      or<\/p>\n
acquiescence does not apply. The entire process<\/p>\n
of selection got vitiated and directions are<\/p>\n
required       to     be     issued       by      this     Court    to<\/p>\n
respondent       authorities         to     act    in     accordance<\/p>\n
with law.\n<\/p>\n
27.        It was stated that several vacancies<\/p>\n
are    still        there    in     the     cadre        of    Medical<\/p>\n
Technologists and almost all the appellants can<\/p>\n
be accommodated by the State authorities. It<\/p>\n
was,    therefore,          submitted       that     the       appeals<\/p>\n
deserve to be allowed by issuing consequential<\/p>\n
directions.\n<\/p>\n
28.        The       respondent       authorities,            on    the<\/p>\n
other hand, supported the orders passed by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court. It<\/p>\n
was stated that there is gross and unexplained
\n                                                                          22<\/span><\/p>\n
delay and laches on the part of the appellants<\/p>\n
in approaching this Court.\n<\/p>\n
29.           So far as the order dated August 11,<\/p>\n
2003     is    concerned,          it     was    submitted         that<\/p>\n
certain       directions          were     issued      which       were<\/p>\n
complied           with     by     the         authorities.         The<\/p>\n
appellants          herein       did     not    challenge       those<\/p>\n
directions          at    that     time.        In    fact,     their<\/p>\n
grievance          was    that    the    authorities         had    not<\/p>\n
complied with the orders passed in August, 2003<\/p>\n
and    hence       contempt      petition       was    filed    after<\/p>\n
about ten months. The prayer was to implement<\/p>\n
the order passed by the High Court. Necessary<\/p>\n
directions were, therefore, issued by the High<\/p>\n
Court in January, 2005 ordering the authorities<\/p>\n
to act in accordance with the directions of the<\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n
30.           It    was    also    contended          that    several<\/p>\n
candidates did not challenge the orders of the<\/p>\n
High Court. It was urged that having accepted<\/p>\n
the judgment and filed contempt petition, the<\/p>\n
appellants were estopped under the doctrine of
\n                                                                       23<\/span><\/p>\n
estoppel,        waiver     or     acquiescence      and        they<\/p>\n
cannot       challenge      the      order     of        2003     by<\/p>\n
approaching this Court after about two years.<\/p>\n
It    was    urged   that        present    case    is    one     of<\/p>\n
`approbate and reprobate’, `hot and cold’, or<\/p>\n
`fast and loose’. This Court, in exercise of<\/p>\n
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of<\/p>\n
the Constitution may not entertain such prayer<\/p>\n
and dismiss all the matters.\n<\/p>\n
31.         It was further urged that in the order<\/p>\n
passed      in   contempt    petition,       the    High    Court<\/p>\n
observed that if any person is aggrieved by any<\/p>\n
action taken by the authorities in pursuance of<\/p>\n
the order, he is at liberty to take appropriate<\/p>\n
proceedings in accordance with law. Therefore,<\/p>\n
even on that ground, the present appeals are<\/p>\n
not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
32.         The    learned        counsel    for    the     State<\/p>\n
stated that 66 persons have been retained who<\/p>\n
were selected and appointed.                 Initially, they<\/p>\n
were not made parties and were continued in<\/p>\n
service. By now they have completed about ten
\n                                                                               24<\/span><\/p>\n
years.         He      fairly       stated         that        in        the<\/p>\n
circumstances,             this     Court         may    direct          the<\/p>\n
authorities           that      those     candidates           who       are<\/p>\n
similarly           situated      to    66     persons         who       are<\/p>\n
protected and who are in the merit list above<\/p>\n
those     66        candidates      may      be    ordered         to    be<\/p>\n
appointed           inasmuch       as     there         are        several<\/p>\n
vacancies. He, however, submitted that the said<\/p>\n
benefit        may        be     extended         only        to     those<\/p>\n
candidates          who   have     approached           the    Court      by<\/p>\n
filing       Original          Applications,        Writ      Petitions<\/p>\n
and by making grievance before this Court. The<\/p>\n
candidates who had not approached the Tribunal,<\/p>\n
High Court and this Court have no right to make<\/p>\n
any grievance. Hence, the applicants who have<\/p>\n
sought impleadment in the present proceedings<\/p>\n
for the first time cannot claim the benefit<\/p>\n
which the appellants herein have claimed. It<\/p>\n
was, therefore, submitted that an appropriate<\/p>\n
direction may be issued so that no prejudice<\/p>\n
will    be     caused      to     those      employees        who       were<\/p>\n
vigilant of their rights and who are otherwise
\n                                                                   25<\/span><\/p>\n
qualified     and       eligible      on    the     basis     of<\/p>\n
protection granted to 66 employees.<\/p>\n
33.       The learned counsel appearing for 66<\/p>\n
employees who were appointed, protected by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal and by the High Court and who are<\/p>\n
still in service, submitted that the High Court<\/p>\n
was wholly right in protecting his clients. It<\/p>\n
was stated that their names were sponsored by<\/p>\n
the Employment Exchange, they cleared written<\/p>\n
examination      as    well    as    oral   interview;      they<\/p>\n
were declared successful and were appointed. In<\/p>\n
the Original Application, they were not made<\/p>\n
parties     before       the    Tribunal.         They   were,<\/p>\n
therefore, protected by the Tribunal and there<\/p>\n
was no illegality therein. The High Court, no<\/p>\n
doubt, directed the Tribunal to consider the<\/p>\n
cases of those candidates but it is equally<\/p>\n
true that they were in service and therefore<\/p>\n
they were protected even in the second round.<\/p>\n
The High Court in the second round, expressly<\/p>\n
stated    that        since    the    employees      were     in<\/p>\n
service, they needed protection and accordingly
\n                                                                      26<\/span><\/p>\n
direction       was     issued    to     that       effect.    Even<\/p>\n
during the course of proceedings, it was stated<\/p>\n
on behalf of the petitioners before the High<\/p>\n
Court that the protection granted in favour of<\/p>\n
selected candidates could be continued. It was,<\/p>\n
however, submitted that similar benefit ought<\/p>\n
to    be   extended        to    them.        The    High     Court<\/p>\n
expressly       protected        them    by     directing       the<\/p>\n
authorities to consider the cases of eligible<\/p>\n
petitioners and to extend similar benefit to<\/p>\n
them.      Even        thereafter,       in     the      contempt<\/p>\n
proceedings, the selected candidates were not<\/p>\n
disturbed. By now, they have completed about<\/p>\n
ten     years     of    service.        It    was,     therefore,<\/p>\n
submitted that this Court, in exercise of power<\/p>\n
under Article 136 of the Constitution, may not<\/p>\n
interfere with the direction issued by the High<\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n
34.        Having heard learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
parties, in our opinion, the appeals deserve to<\/p>\n
be partly allowed. The contention on behalf of<\/p>\n
the State Government that written examination
\n                                                                          27<\/span><\/p>\n
was for short-listing the candidates and was in<\/p>\n
the nature of `elimination test’ has no doubt<\/p>\n
substance in it in view of the fact that the<\/p>\n
records disclose that there were about 80 posts<\/p>\n
of Medical Technologies and a huge number of<\/p>\n
candidates,        approximately            4,000      applied     for<\/p>\n
appointment.            The        State       authorities         had,<\/p>\n
therefore,        no    other       option      but    to    `screen’<\/p>\n
candidates by holding written examination. It<\/p>\n
was   observed         that    no       Recruitment     Rules      were<\/p>\n
framed      in    exercise         of    the    power    under     the<\/p>\n
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and<\/p>\n
hence no such action could be taken. In our<\/p>\n
opinion, however, even in absence of statutory<\/p>\n
provision, such an action can always be taken<\/p>\n
on the basis of administrative instructions –<\/p>\n
for   the     purpose         of   `elimination’        and      `short<\/p>\n
listing’ of huge number of candidates provided<\/p>\n
the     action         is     otherwise         bona        fide    and<\/p>\n
reasonable. It has also come on record that the<\/p>\n
administrative decision had been taken by the<\/p>\n
State    to      take       `elimination        test’       to   `short
\n                                                              28<\/span><\/p>\n
list’ huge number of candidates. It is further<\/p>\n
clear that the plea to that effect was raised<\/p>\n
by the State in the first round of litigation<\/p>\n
before the first authority, viz. the Tribunal<\/p>\n
itself. But, in view of the fact that in that<\/p>\n
round   of   litigation,     the    Tribunal   held     the<\/p>\n
action of the State authorities to be wrong and<\/p>\n
the High Court upheld it and the State did not<\/p>\n
challenge    the   order    in   this   Court,     in   our<\/p>\n
opinion, the High Court in the second round,<\/p>\n
did not commit any error of law in directing<\/p>\n
the authorities to prepare merit list on the<\/p>\n
basis of marks obtained by the candidates in<\/p>\n
written examination as also in oral interview.<\/p>\n
It was not open to the State authorities to<\/p>\n
reiterate and re-agitate in the second round,<\/p>\n
the same ground, that written examination was<\/p>\n
in the nature of `elimination test’ and it was<\/p>\n
limited to `short listing’ of candidates and<\/p>\n
marks   obtained   by   candidates      at   the   written<\/p>\n
examination    could       not     be   considered      for<\/p>\n
preparation of merit list. The said stage had
\n                                                                            29<\/span><\/p>\n
already    gone      and    the    decision          in   the       first<\/p>\n
round    had    attained         finality       so    far      as     the<\/p>\n
nature of written examination was concerned.<\/p>\n
The     Tribunal       and       the     High        Court          were,<\/p>\n
therefore, right in holding in the second round<\/p>\n
that the merit list was required to be prepared<\/p>\n
on the basis of composite marks obtained by<\/p>\n
candidates at the written examination and oral<\/p>\n
interview both and not only on the basis of<\/p>\n
marks at the oral interview.\n<\/p>\n
35.       The        contention        on       behalf         of     the<\/p>\n
appellants that as per the law laid down by<\/p>\n
this    Court    in    Ajay      Hasia      &   Ors.      v.    Khalid<\/p>\n
Mujib Sehravardi & Ors.,<\/a> (1981) 1 SCC 722 and<\/p>\n
other cases that there cannot be more than 15%<\/p>\n
marks    at    the    oral    interview         also      cannot       be<\/p>\n
accepted at this stage.                As already indicated<\/p>\n
earlier, such a direction was issued as early<\/p>\n
as in 2000. The appellants, who were applicants<\/p>\n
before the Tribunal and petitioners before the<\/p>\n
High Court accepted the said decision and did<\/p>\n
not     challenge          the     legality           thereof          by
\n                                                                            30<\/span><\/p>\n
approaching       this    Court.       Even       in     the    second<\/p>\n
round, the same view was taken both by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal and by the High Court.                        The decision<\/p>\n
of    the     High       Court        was       not      challenged<\/p>\n
immediately.       On    the     contrary,          by    filing        a<\/p>\n
Contempt      Petition,          implementation                of     the<\/p>\n
direction of the High Court was sought by the<\/p>\n
appellant. The said direction was, therefore,<\/p>\n
binding     on    all     the     parties          including          the<\/p>\n
appellants.\n<\/p>\n
36.         Regarding         protection          granted       to     66<\/p>\n
candidates, from the record it is clear that<\/p>\n
their names were sponsored by the Employment<\/p>\n
Exchange, they were selected and appointed in<\/p>\n
1998-99. The candidates who were unable to get<\/p>\n
themselves selected who raised a grievance and<\/p>\n
made a complaint before the Tribunal by filing<\/p>\n
applications         ought       to        have       joined         them<\/p>\n
(selected     candidates)         as    respondents            in    the<\/p>\n
Original Application, which was not done.                             In<\/p>\n
any   case,      some    of    them    ought       to     have       been<\/p>\n
arrayed     as    respondents         in    a     `representative
\n                                                      31<\/span><\/p>\n
capacity’. That was also not done. The Tribunal<\/p>\n
was, therefore, wholly right in holding that in<\/p>\n
absence of selected and appointed candidates<\/p>\n
and without affording opportunity of hearing to<\/p>\n
them, their selection could not be set aside.<\/p>\n
37.       The Tribunal stated;\n<\/p>\n
      “In the case before us, the marks
\n      obtained in the written test were
\n      excluded    from     consideration      which
\n      preparing    the    final    list    not   in
\n      accordance    with     any   policy     which
\n      decision of the Government. Moreover,
\n      the weight of the decision of the Apex
\n      Court is on the side of consideration
\n      of the totality of the performance of
\n      the   candidates     in    both    oral   and
\n      written   test,     when    rules    do   not
\n      provide against it and appointment
\n      should be given from the merit list
\n      thus prepared in accordance with the
\n      rules including reservation rules. In
\n      our   views    same    course     should   be
\n      followed in the cases before us.           In
\n      this    connection,       it     should    be
\n      mentioned that this finding will not
\n      affect   the    appointments       given   to
\n      medical    technologists        (Laboratory)
\n      already the appointments given as
\n      those person are not parties to the
\n      proceedings before this Tribunal. It
\n      would be most improper for us to pass
\n      any judgment against to them without
\n      giving them an opportunity of being
\n      heard.    So those appointments will
\n      remain unaffected by this Judgment”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                            (emphasis supplied)
\n                                                                        32<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
38.        The          learned       counsel           for       the<\/p>\n
respondents, in this connection rightly placed<\/p>\n
reliance     on     a     decision       of     this     Court     in<\/p>\n
Prabodh    Verma        and    Ors.      v.   State      of     Uttar<\/p>\n
Pradesh & Ors.,<\/a> (1984) 4 SCC 251.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
39.        True it is that the High Court, in the<\/p>\n
first      round,        directed         the       Tribunal       to<\/p>\n
reconsider the matter of 66 candidates who were<\/p>\n
selected     and        appointed        observing      that      the<\/p>\n
Tribunal     had        not   assigned        any      reason     for<\/p>\n
granting protection. With respect, it was not<\/p>\n
factually correct. The Tribunal had recorded<\/p>\n
reasons, namely, that they had been selected<\/p>\n
and appointed, they were working since the date<\/p>\n
of their appointment; they were not joined as<\/p>\n
respondents and no opportunity of hearing was<\/p>\n
afforded    to     them       and   in    their      absence      and<\/p>\n
without observing principles of natural justice<\/p>\n
and fair play, their appointment could not be<\/p>\n
set aside.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   33<\/span><\/p>\n
40.       Be that as it may, in the second round<\/p>\n
also, the Tribunal as well as the High Court<\/p>\n
protected them.\n<\/p>\n
41.       Dealing with the selected candidates,<\/p>\n
the Tribunal stated;\n<\/p>\n
          “Taking an over-all view of the
\n      matter as disclosed from material on
\n      record, we find that the selection
\n      process   opted   by    the   Respondent
\n      authorities   was    bonafide    and   in
\n      accordance with the law.      Therefore,
\n      we approve the action taken by them
\n      in the matter.      We hold that the
\n      entire selection process was not
\n      vitiated in law and hence there was
\n      no question of quashing the selection
\n      process and other action adopted by
\n      the respondents in the matter. There
\n      was again no question of cancellation
\n      of the appointments given by the
\n      State Respondent authorities to 190
\n      candidates.     They have served for
\n      about 3 years and have hence gained
\n      sufficient experience in the work of
\n      investigation    entrusted    to    them.
\n      Again any other setting aside their
\n      appointments was bound to affect
\n      adversely the working of various
\n      medical Technologists in different
\n      Medical Units throughout the State of
\n      West Bengal.      We also hold that
\n      fixation of qualifying marks in both
\n      written and oral test as 40% is quite
\n      lawful and valid in the facts and
\n      circumstances of the case.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n          In the aforesaid background and\n      scenario,    we    direct    that     the\n      appointees   (in-service    candidates)\n                                                  34<\/span>\n\n<\/pre>\n
      will continue to do work as Medical
\n      Technologists. We also hold that the
\n      panel of 240 candidates was quite
\n      lawful and valid.      Accordingly, we
\n      direct     the     State     respondent
\n      authorities to offer appointments to
\n      the successful candidates, who are
\n      not now waiting in the Panel (Namely
\n      from Sl. No. 202-240) subject to
\n      availability of vacancies and also
\n      subject to medical examination and
\n      police verification.     We also issue
\n      directions     to    the    Respondents
\n      concerned, to relax the age illegible
\n      of     the    empanelled     successful
\n      candidates (namely from Sl. No. 202-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      240), if so required.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
42.       The High Court, in the writ petition<\/p>\n
also stated;\n<\/p>\n
      “It is further made clear that if
\n      those candidates who are already
\n      appointed do not find a place in the
\n      panel in that case consequential
\n      orders may be made by the State
\n      Government.    But those who were in
\n      the panel if they can be accommodated
\n      by reason of existing vacancies in
\n      such cases persons who have already
\n      been    appointed   should   not   be
\n      disturbed. If is further made clear
\n      that appointments must be made on the
\n      basis of the      panel  as  directed
\n      above.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
43.       Even in contempt proceedings, similar<\/p>\n
orders were passed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     35<\/span><\/p>\n
44.       On December 21, 2004, the Court passed<\/p>\n
the following orders;\n<\/p>\n
      “After   considering   the   facts  and
\n      circumstances of the case and also the
\n      affidavits filed by the State, it
\n      appears that in the panel which has
\n      been prepared, there are sixty-six
\n      persons who do not qualify on the
\n      basis of the norms fixed by this
\n      Court’s order dated 11th August, 2003
\n      and on the basis of which the panel
\n      has   been  prepared.    But  the  fact
\n      remains that those sixty-six persons
\n      are now working. There were none
\n      vacancies which could not be filled
\n      up. It also appears from the affidavit
\n      of the State that those vacancies have
\n      become defunct. The Court is also not
\n      inclined   to   pass   any   order  for
\n      removal\/termination of services of
\n      those sixty-six persons who have been
\n      working for last three to four years
\n      and have become confirmed”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                          (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
45.       Then   while   finally   disposing    of<\/p>\n
Contempt Petition, the Court said;<\/p>\n
      “We,   therefore,   give   liberty  to
\n      accommodate those sixty six persons in
\n      the manner it thinks best and without
\n      disturbing    their     seniority   or
\n      continuity of service.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
46.       In fact, it was stated at the Bar that<\/p>\n
on behalf of the appellants a statement was
\n                                                                             36<\/span><\/p>\n
made before the High Court that appointment of<\/p>\n
66 employees may not be disturbed but similar<\/p>\n
relief could be granted and benefit should be<\/p>\n
extended to the candidates who had approached<\/p>\n
the Court. The Court, to that extent, accepted<\/p>\n
the submission and directed the authorities to<\/p>\n
consider the cases of those candidates who had<\/p>\n
obtained        requisite          40%     marks       at        written<\/p>\n
examination       and    oral       test    and    who      could       be<\/p>\n
placed in the merit list along with or above 66<\/p>\n
candidates. By taking such view, no illegality<\/p>\n
can be said to have been committed by the High<\/p>\n
Court   and      we     see    no    infirmity         in        such    a<\/p>\n
direction.\n<\/p>\n
47.        In    Munindra          Kumar    &     Ors.      v.    Rajiv<\/p>\n
Govil & Ors.,<\/a> (1991) 3 SCC 368, the selection<\/p>\n
comprised of written test, group discussion and<\/p>\n
oral interview.          The relevant rule fixed 40 per<\/p>\n
cent of total marks for group discussion and<\/p>\n
oral interview (20 per cent each). Though this<\/p>\n
Court held fixation of marks as arbitrary being<\/p>\n
on    higher     side,        it    refused       to     set       aside
\n                                                                      37<\/span><\/p>\n
selection made on that basis since selection<\/p>\n
had already been made, persons were selected,<\/p>\n
appointed and were in service.\n<\/p>\n
48.        In   Gujarat     State       Deputy         Executive<\/p>\n
Engineers’ Association v. State of Gujarat &<\/p>\n
Ors.,   1994    Supp      (2)    SCC    591,       this       Court<\/p>\n
recorded    a   finding     that       appointments           given<\/p>\n
under the `wait list’ was not in accordance<\/p>\n
with law. It, however, refused to set aside<\/p>\n
such appointments in view of length of service<\/p>\n
(five years and more).\n<\/p>\n
49.        In   Buddhi    Nath    Cahudhary        &    Ors.    v.<\/p>\n
Akhil   Kumar     &      Ors.,    (2001)       3       SCC     328,<\/p>\n
appointments were held to be improper.                          But<\/p>\n
this Court did not disturb the appointments on<\/p>\n
the ground that the incumbents had worked for<\/p>\n
several years and had gained good experience.<\/p>\n
“We have extended equitable considerations to<\/p>\n
such selected candidates who have worked on the<\/p>\n
posts for a long period”, said the Court.<\/p>\n
50.        In M.S. Mudhol (Dr.) & Anr. V. S.D.<\/p>\n
Halegkar    &    Ors.,<\/a>     (1993)       3   SCC        591,    the
\n                                                                        38<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner sought a writ of quo warranto and<\/p>\n
prayed for removal of a principal of a school<\/p>\n
on    the   ground      that      he    did    not    possess    the<\/p>\n
requisite         qualification            and       was    wrongly<\/p>\n
selected         by the Selection Committee. Keeping<\/p>\n
in view the fact, however, that the incumbent<\/p>\n
was    occupying       the    office      of     Principal    since<\/p>\n
more    than     ten    years,      this      Court    refused    to<\/p>\n
disturb him at that stage.\n<\/p>\n
51.         In    our    considered           opinion,     the   law<\/p>\n
laid down by this Court in aforesaid and other<\/p>\n
cases applies to the present situation also. We<\/p>\n
are of the considered view that it would be<\/p>\n
inequitable       if    we    set      aside     appointments      of<\/p>\n
candidates selected, appointed and are working<\/p>\n
since 1998-99.           We, therefore, hold that the<\/p>\n
Tribunal and the High Court were right in not<\/p>\n
setting aside their appointments.<\/p>\n
52.         It is undisputed that by the time we<\/p>\n
are    called     upon       to   decide       the    matter,    the<\/p>\n
selected         and     appointed             candidates        have<\/p>\n
completed ten years. They are thus having rich
\n                                                                      39<\/span><\/p>\n
experience       in    the    field.    There       are    several<\/p>\n
vacancies. The stand of the State Government is<\/p>\n
equally fair and reasonable. It was stated that<\/p>\n
those candidates who had grievance against the<\/p>\n
selection and had not waived their right to get<\/p>\n
similar      treatment        and   had       approached       the<\/p>\n
Tribunal, High Court and this Court, may be<\/p>\n
granted similar relief. We are also of the view<\/p>\n
that such relief can be granted in favour of<\/p>\n
appellants       who   were    agitated       and    had    raised<\/p>\n
voice      against     the     selection       of    candidates<\/p>\n
before the Tribunal, before the High Court and<\/p>\n
before us.\n<\/p>\n
53.         Those       candidates           who      had       not\n\napproached       the   Tribunal,       High    Court      or   this\n\n<\/pre>\n
Court have now filed Interim Applications in<\/p>\n
this Court. The learned counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
those applicants submitted that they may also<\/p>\n
be granted similar benefits. It was urged that<\/p>\n
equals must be treated equally which is the<\/p>\n
fundamental right enshrined in Articles 14 and<\/p>\n
16    of   the    Constitution.         It    was    vehemently
\n                                                                          40<\/span><\/p>\n
argued that it is settled law that fundamental<\/p>\n
rights cannot be waived. Hence, even if the<\/p>\n
applicants       had        not   approached         this         Court<\/p>\n
earlier, they can come to this Court claiming<\/p>\n
similar    relief       by    invoking       Part    III      of   the<\/p>\n
Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
54.        We         are     unable        to      uphold          the<\/p>\n
contention. It is no doubt true that there can<\/p>\n
be no waiver of fundamental right. But while<\/p>\n
exercising       discretionary          jurisdiction              under<\/p>\n
Articles        32,     226,      227       or    136        of    the<\/p>\n
Constitution,         this     Court    takes       into     account<\/p>\n
certain factors and one of such considerations<\/p>\n
is    delay     and     laches     on       the   part       of     the<\/p>\n
applicant in approaching a writ-Court. It is<\/p>\n
well settled that power to issue a writ is<\/p>\n
discretionary. One of the grounds for refusing<\/p>\n
reliefs       under     Article        32    or     226      of    the<\/p>\n
Constitution is that the petitioner is guilty<\/p>\n
of delay and laches.\n<\/p>\n
55.        If    the        petitioner       wants      to    invoke<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of a writ-Court, he should come to
\n                                                                      41<\/span><\/p>\n
the Court at the earliest reasonably possible<\/p>\n
opportunity.      Inordinate        delay      in    making    the<\/p>\n
motion for a writ will indeed be a good ground<\/p>\n
for   refusing    to      exercise      such    discretionary<\/p>\n
jurisdiction.      The     underlying         object    of     this<\/p>\n
principle    is   not      to    encourage       agitation       of<\/p>\n
stale   claims    and      exhume       matters      which     have<\/p>\n
already been disposed of or settled or where<\/p>\n
the rights of third parties have accrued in the<\/p>\n
meantime [vide State of M.P. & Anr. V. Bhailal<\/p>\n
Bhai,<\/a>    (1964)      6    SCR     261;        Moon     Mills    v.<\/p>\n
Industrial    Court,      Bombay,       AIR<\/a>    1967    SC    1450;<\/p>\n
Bhoop Singh v. Union of India & Ors.,<\/a> (1992) 2<\/p>\n
SCR 969].\n<\/p>\n
56.       This principle applies even in case of<\/p>\n
an    infringement       of     fundamental         right    [vide<\/p>\n
Trilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi,<\/a> (1969) 1<\/p>\n
SCC   110;   Durga       Prasad    v.    Chief       Controller,<\/p>\n
(1969) 1 SCC 185; Rabindranath Bose v. Union<\/p>\n
of India, (1970) 1 SCC 84].\n<\/p>\n
57.       There is no upper limit and there is<\/p>\n
no lower limit as to when a person can approach
\n                                                               42<\/span><\/p>\n
a Court. The question is one of discretion and<\/p>\n
has to be decided on the basis of facts before<\/p>\n
the Court depending on and vary from case to<\/p>\n
case. It will depend upon what the breach of<\/p>\n
fundamental right and the remedy claimed are<\/p>\n
and when and how the delay arose.\n<\/p>\n
58.        We   are    in   respectful     agreement    with<\/p>\n
the   following       observations    of   this   Court   in<\/p>\n
P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N., (1975) 1<\/p>\n
SCC 152;\n<\/p>\n
      “It is not that there is any period of
\n      limitation for the Courts to exercise
\n      their powers under Article 226 nor is
\n      it that there can never be a case
\n      where the Courts cannot interfere in a
\n      matter after the passage of a certain
\n      length of time. But it would be a
\n      sound and wise exercise of discretion
\n      for the Courts to refuse to exercise
\n      their   extra-ordinary   powers  under
\n      Article 226 in the case of persons who
\n      do not approach it expeditiously for
\n      relief and who stand by and allow
\n      things to happen and then approach the
\n      Court to put forward stale claims and
\n      try to unsettle settled matters”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                         (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
59.        From   the       facts,   it    is   clear   that<\/p>\n
written    examination         for   the    selection     of
\n                                                                     43<\/span><\/p>\n
Medical Technologists was taken as early as in<\/p>\n
August,      1995    and       list   of    more    than     1,000<\/p>\n
candidates was published in June, 1996. By now<\/p>\n
more than a decade has passed. The applicants<\/p>\n
who had never challenged the selection before<\/p>\n
the Tribunal, before the High Court and before<\/p>\n
us and have applied for the first time in the<\/p>\n
present proceedings which were instituted in<\/p>\n
2005 by filing impleadment applications have<\/p>\n
thus    accepted        the    position     as     prevailed    in<\/p>\n
1996.     Qua them, therefore, the matter can be<\/p>\n
said    to    have      been    `settled’.       Initiation     of<\/p>\n
proceedings at the instance of those candidates<\/p>\n
now will `unsettle the settled position’.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
60.          In   our    opinion,     the    learned       counsel<\/p>\n
for the State is right in contending that even<\/p>\n
if this Court holds that the appellants who<\/p>\n
have approached this Court are entitled to some<\/p>\n
relief, such relief could be granted to those<\/p>\n
candidates        who     had     grievance        against     the<\/p>\n
selection and who had challenged the action of<\/p>\n
the respondent authorities but it could not be
\n                                                                        44<\/span><\/p>\n
extended to the applicants who have approached<\/p>\n
this Court in the present proceedings.<\/p>\n
61.        Though there is considerable force in<\/p>\n
the argument of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
State and contesting respondents that there is<\/p>\n
substantial delay on the part of the appellants<\/p>\n
in    approaching      this    Court,    in     the       light   of<\/p>\n
factual scenario and the direction which we are<\/p>\n
inclined to issue, we have thought it fit not<\/p>\n
to    dismiss       Special    Leave    Petitions          on     the<\/p>\n
ground of delay but considering merits of the<\/p>\n
case,    we     are     issuing      necessary        directions<\/p>\n
granting      relief     to    the   appellants        who      were<\/p>\n
vigilant about their rights.\n<\/p>\n
62.        Similarly, there is also substance in<\/p>\n
the contention of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondents that the appellants, by appearing<\/p>\n
in the written examination and oral interview<\/p>\n
had    taken    a     chance   and     having    failed         have<\/p>\n
approached      the     Tribunal.        Again,       a    Special<\/p>\n
Leave   Petition       filed    by   some     candidates          has<\/p>\n
already been dismissed by this Court.                       But in
\n                                                                             45<\/span><\/p>\n
the     larger       interest       and        keeping         in     view<\/p>\n
vacancies      in     the        cadre,        we       have    granted<\/p>\n
equitable      relief       in     favour          of   eligible       and<\/p>\n
qualified applicants.\n<\/p>\n
63.          In the result, the appeals are partly<\/p>\n
allowed.      Service       of     66    candidates            who    were<\/p>\n
selected       and     appointed          in        1998-99,         whose<\/p>\n
appointments were initially not challenged and<\/p>\n
thereafter who were protected by the Tribunal<\/p>\n
and by the High Court have not been disturbed.<\/p>\n
The appellants who are similarly situated to 66<\/p>\n
respondents who are protected in the present<\/p>\n
proceedings will be treated at par with those<\/p>\n
respondents.         And if on the basis of merit list<\/p>\n
prepared as per the order of the High Court,<\/p>\n
they    are    found    eligible             and    qualified,         the<\/p>\n
State    Government         will    consider            their       cases,<\/p>\n
i.e.    the    cases    of       the     appellants            and    will<\/p>\n
appoint them in accordance with law. Age bar,<\/p>\n
if    any,    will    not    come       in    the       way    of    those<\/p>\n
candidates.      The        said        benefit,         however,       is<\/p>\n
limited to those candidates who have challenged
\n                                                                                           46<\/span><\/p>\n
the selection by approaching the Tribunal, the<\/p>\n
High Court and this Court.         Our directions will<\/p>\n
not   apply    to   those    candidates                       who            have<\/p>\n
approached this Court for the first time by<\/p>\n
filing        Interim       Applications.                                  Their<\/p>\n
applications, therefore, stand dismissed.<\/p>\n
64.      On the facts and in the circumstances<\/p>\n
of the case, there shall be no order as to<\/p>\n
costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                             …………………………………………………J.
\n                             (C.K. THAKKER)<\/p>\n
NEW DELHI,                   …………………………………………………J.
\nNovember 04, 2008.           (D.K. JAIN)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Tridip Kumar Dingal And Ors vs State Of West Bengal And Ors on 4 November, 2008 Bench: C.K. Thakker, D.K. Jain REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. OF 2008 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOs. 14820-14825 OF 2005 TRIDIP KUMAR DINGAL & […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-44886","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nTridip Kumar Dingal And Ors vs State Of West Bengal And Ors on 4 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tridip-kumar-dingal-and-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-on-4-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tridip Kumar Dingal And Ors vs State Of West Bengal And Ors on 4 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tridip-kumar-dingal-and-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-on-4-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-01T22:22:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"36 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tridip-kumar-dingal-and-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-on-4-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tridip-kumar-dingal-and-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-on-4-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tridip Kumar Dingal And Ors vs State Of West Bengal And Ors on 4 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-01T22:22:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tridip-kumar-dingal-and-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-on-4-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":7054,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tridip-kumar-dingal-and-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-on-4-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tridip-kumar-dingal-and-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-on-4-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tridip-kumar-dingal-and-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-on-4-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Tridip Kumar Dingal And Ors vs State Of West Bengal And Ors on 4 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-01T22:22:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tridip-kumar-dingal-and-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-on-4-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tridip-kumar-dingal-and-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-on-4-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tridip-kumar-dingal-and-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-on-4-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tridip Kumar Dingal And Ors vs State Of West Bengal And Ors on 4 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Tridip Kumar Dingal And Ors vs State Of West Bengal And Ors on 4 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tridip-kumar-dingal-and-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-on-4-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tridip Kumar Dingal And Ors vs State Of West Bengal And Ors on 4 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tridip-kumar-dingal-and-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-on-4-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-01T22:22:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"36 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tridip-kumar-dingal-and-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-on-4-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tridip-kumar-dingal-and-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-on-4-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tridip Kumar Dingal And Ors vs State Of West Bengal And Ors on 4 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-01T22:22:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tridip-kumar-dingal-and-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-on-4-november-2008"},"wordCount":7054,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tridip-kumar-dingal-and-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-on-4-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tridip-kumar-dingal-and-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-on-4-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tridip-kumar-dingal-and-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-on-4-november-2008","name":"Tridip Kumar Dingal And Ors vs State Of West Bengal And Ors on 4 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-01T22:22:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tridip-kumar-dingal-and-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-on-4-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tridip-kumar-dingal-and-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-on-4-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tridip-kumar-dingal-and-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-on-4-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tridip Kumar Dingal And Ors vs State Of West Bengal And Ors on 4 November, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44886","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=44886"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44886\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44886"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44886"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44886"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}