‘Compassion can’t trump Constitution’: Calcutta High Court refuses panchayat worker’s plea for regularisation
Calcutta High Court ruling, compassion vs Constitution: Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay said such appointments would only embolden “illegality and prejudice” affecting the rights of the countless eligible candidates or aspirants who never had the opportunity to compete.
Calcutta High Court ruling: While refusing regularisation of a panchayat worker with over two decades of service, the Calcutta High Court recently observed that “courts cannot reward an appointment made through personal discretion disregarding the law”.
Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay, in an order passed on December 2, further noted that compassion cannot trump the Constitution and sentiment cannot substitute for statutory compliance.
“Courts cannot rehabilitate what the statute does not recognise. The remedy of regularisation is, therefore, untenable,” the court said.
Such appointments, the court opined, would only embolden “illegality and prejudice” affecting the rights of the countless eligible candidates or aspirants who never had the opportunity to compete.
Gadadhar Rana, a resident of Purba Bardhaman district of West Bengal approached the court in 2019 stating that he was appointed as casual worker at Mahata Gram Panchayat on November 1, 1999 by the pradhan. Since then, he has had “more than two decades of uninterrupted, unblemished and continuous engagement”, said the petition.
He was permitted to join on compassionate grounds after his father, who was a regular employee of the panchayat, was declared medically unfit.
Rana told the court that there had been “persistent inaction” of the authorities concerned in regularising his service through absorption as ‘panchayat karmee’.
Story continues below this ad
He continued to receive a monthly sum of Rs 7,000 and requested the officials to increase his remuneration according to a government order, which increased salaries of casual workers upto Rs 19,000 till 2010.
Rana moved the high court after he was denied the increment.
Arguments
The petitioner through his counsel advocate Sankha Biswas urged the court to consider his two decades of service against infirmities while the state government represented by advocates Jhuma Chakraborty and Pariksshit Goswami contended that his appointment was an illegal one.
His counsel also said that the denial of regularisation, despite decades of “services and sacrifice”, is characterised as wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Story continues below this ad
The counsel for the government submitted the petitioner’s appointment was impermissible being contrary to the statutory framework as it was facilitated by the pradhan of the panchayat substituting his father. They said proper procedure of recruitment was not followed.
The courts cannot be sentimental when it comes to the implementation of law and the Constitutional Courts cannot sanctify anything prohibited by law.
The petitioner’s appointment was illegal ‘void ab initio’ (void from the beginning) as no proper procedure was followed.
The pradhan acted outside the statute and the rules and the appointment cannot, by any judicial stretch, be regularized.
Story continues below this ad
“No selection procedure, advertisements or District Level Selection Committee was convened and the engagement emanated from personal discretion and not in compliance of Government scheme or
procedure.”
Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system.
Expertise
Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including:
Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability.
Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters.
Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights.
Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More
