Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present : The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury WPA 25162 of 2018 with CAN 1 of 2019 (Old CAN 8317 of 2019) Aniruddha Kar & Ors. Versus West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Ors. With WPA 24642 of 2018 With CAN 1 of 2019 (Old CAN 8318 of 2019) Rakesh Kumar Srivastava & Anr. Versus West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Ors. For the petitioners : Mr. Soumya Majumdar Mr. Victor Chatterjee For the WBSEDCL : Mr. Joydeep Kar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sujit Sankar Koley Mr. S. Deb Heard on : 26.02.2024, 03.04.2024, 14.06.2024, 08.11.2024, 07.02.2025, 04.04.2025, 02.05.2025, 13.06.2025, 12.12.2025, & 19.12.2025. Judgment on : 19th March 2026. Raja Basu Chowdhury, J: 1. Both the writ petitions raised common questions, accordingly the same are taken up for consideration together. The petitioners 2 WPA 25162 of 2018 with WPA 24642 of 2018 claimed to have passed the intermediate from the Institute of Cost Works Accountants of India (in short “ICWAI”), a statutory body constituted under an Act of Parliament. On the basis of a requisition sent by the respondent no.1 to ICWAI expressly agreeing to provide opportunity to the selected candidates, for undergoing practical training under the respondent no.1, the petitioners were selected as Semi-Professional Accounts Personnel as trainees. The initial deployment was for a period of 6 months. The orders based on which the petitioners were selected dates back to January, 2010. 2. According to the petitioners, the respondent no.1 had approved a recruitment policy in the year 2010 whereby recruitment through campus interview was one of the modes of recruitment. According to the petitioners, the petitioners are rendering service since the year 2009-10 in the Accounts Department of the respondent no.1. At the time of initial engagement, the petitioners received a stipend of Rs.6,000/- per month. The aforesaid trainee service has since been extended from time to time and the petitioners continue to work as trainees with the respondent no.1 till date. According to the petitioners, the works executed by the petitioners have been recognized and appreciated by the Assistant Manager, who has also on the basis of the petitioners’ performance and service had forwarded their case of regularization, for consideration by the General Manager of the respondent no.1. The petitioners at the time of filing the writ petition, were receiving a fixed remuneration of Rs. 3 WPA 25162 of 2018 with WPA 24642 of 2018 14,000/- per month. The petitioners contend that the service rendered and the work performed by them are integral part of the finance and accounts department of the respondent no.1 and without the service of the petitioners, the respondents would not be able to function properly. The petitioners claim that the jobs performed by the petitioners are same and identical as the jobs performed by the Junior Executives (Finance). According to the petitioners, the post of Junior Executive (Finance) is the base post in the financial cadre. According to the petitioners, they have been continuously rendering their services at par with the Junior Executives (Finance) and as such are entitled to equal pay for equal work, which has been denied. The petitioners also contend that there is hostile discrimination between the petitioners and the Junior Executives (Finance) and as such interference is called for. The petitioners have already served the respondent no.1 for more than a decade and as such though, the respondent no.1 had offered opportunity to the petitioners to participate in the recruitment by providing age relaxation upto 27 years, such age relaxation does not assist the petitioners as the petitioners have crossed the relaxed age of 27 years. According to the petitioners, though the petitioners had participated in the selection process of 2013, 2014 and 2015, however, the petitioners could not succeed. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioners continue to discharge their functions as 4 WPA 25162 of 2018 with WPA 24642 of 2018 trainees at the fixed remuneration. It is in the facts noted hereinabove, the instant writ petitions have been filed. 3. Mr. Majumder, learned senior advocate appears for the petitioners and has placed before this Court the judgments delivered in the case of Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826, Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 and Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 818, to contend that the respondents cannot be permitted to exploit the petitioners by retaining them as trainees on the one hand, without providing them with adequate remuneration as the same seeks to infringe upon the rights of the petitioners as guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He has also relied on the following judgments: i. Union of India & Ors. v. Vartak Labour Union (2), reported in (2011) 4 SCC 200, ii. Durgapur Casual Workers Union & Ors. v. Food Corporation of India & Ors., reported in (2015) 5 SCC 786, iii. State of M.P. & Ors. v. Yogesh Chandra Dubey & Ors., reported in (2006) 8 SCC 67 and iv. State of Karnataka & Ors. v. M. L. Kesari & Ors., reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247. 4. Mr. Kar, learned senior advocate appears for the respondents. According to the respondents, the petitioners were deployed as 5 WPA 25162 of 2018 with WPA 24642 of 2018 trainees and as such the respondent no.1 has no obligation to absorb the trainees so deployed. According to Mr. Kar, most of the trainees had appeared in the regular selection process for the post of Junior Executive (Finance) and several candidates after competing/participating in regular selection process were successful and had been engaged in the regular post of the respondent no.1. Unfortunately, although, the petitioners availed of the opportunity but could not succeed; the respondents thus, cannot be made responsible therefore. Admittedly, the petitioners were not deployed in the regular sanctioned posts, they also could not be successful in the regular selection process and as such they have no right to seek for absorption. According to the respondents, although, the petitioners had been unsuccessful in the first attempt, a second opportunity was given to the petitioners by relaxing their age to participate in the selection process. Unfortunately, despite the above, they could not avail the opportunity. It is the respondents’ contention that Regulation 11 of the Company Service Regulation WBSEBEST is applicable in respect of regular employees of the respondent no.1 holding sanctioned post and not for any other category of employees like the petitioners, who do not have any right as they are not recruited through regular recruitment process. They are the trainees who were employed to give them exposure and gain experience on the basis of an understanding with the institute. According to Mr. Kar, 6 WPA 25162 of 2018 with WPA 24642 of 2018 the appointment of the petitioners cannot be regularized in the light of the judgment delivered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors v. Umadevi (3) & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. It is contended that the judgment delivered in the case of Umadevi (3) (supra) is a Constitutional Bench judgment and as such the ratio of the judgment still holds the fields. 5. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had been selected in their capacity as Semi-Professional Accounts Personnel, who had passed intermediate examination of the ICWA and were accordingly deployed as trainees for a period of 6 months. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid trainees, who are the petitioners, have since been continued by successive agreements. With the passage of time, the applicable rates/stipend paid to the petitioners have been enhanced. Having regard to the case made out by the respective parties and noting that the petitioners are in continuous employment though in their capacity of trainees for more than a decade, this Court in order to consider whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief as sought for has considered the recruitment policy of 2010 of the respondent no.1. As would appear from the aforesaid recruitment policy, the said policy, inter alia, provides that the recruitment shall be made in the mode and manner provided for in such policy and no recruitment shall be made otherwise than 7 WPA 25162 of 2018 with WPA 24642 of 2018 through any one of the following methods. To morefully appreciate the methods of recruitment, the same is extracted hereinbelow: 8 WPA 25162 of 2018 with WPA 24642 of 2018 9 WPA 25162 of 2018 with WPA 24642 of 2018 7. As would appear from the above, one of the modes of recruitment is through the scope of walk-in interview, campus interview in the institute of repute with prior intimation, after observing standard practice reflecting transparency of the selecting institute and/or the candidates. Admittedly, in this case, the respondent no.1 had approached the Chairman, East India Regional Council of ICWAI and on the basis of interview had selected candidates/students to provide them an opportunity of practical training. In the instant case, the above training has, however, been continued for an unlimited period. In the interregnum, however, in terms of an office order, the respondent no.1 had permitted the trainees to participate in a regular selection process by relaxing the upper age limit for professionally semi qualified trainees having qualified ICWA intermediate examination or equivalent for the post of Junior Executive (Finance). It is also not in dispute that the petitioners had participated in such process and some of the participants who had been successful from amongst the trainees, had been recruited. Unfortunately, the persons who did not succeed were continued as trainees with the respondent no.1. Although, it has been stated by the respondents that the petitioners cannot be equated with the other regular employees and no backdoor appointment is permissible in the light of the judgment delivered in the case of Umadevi (3) (supra), however, I find that it is not in dispute that the petitioners continue to remain employed with the respondent no.1 10 WPA 25162 of 2018 with WPA 24642 of 2018 despite having not succeeded in the recruitment process. Ordinarily, if the petitioners were not found to be successful, the respondents ought not to have permitted the petitioners to continue, such is not the case. I find that the petitioners claim to be discharging the duties as Junior Executive (Finance). I also find that there is no denial of the fact that the petitioners are discharging the same work as of the Junior Executive (Finance). What is disputed, however, is the right of the petitioners to claim the status of the Junior Executive (Finance) without the petitioners being appointed to such post through regular recruitment process. The respondent no.1 is, however, not shy to retain the petitioners in the post of trainee by paying the petitioners a meagre amount for decades together. For more than 15 years, the petitioners are discharging their duties in their capacity as Junior Executive trainees. I find that the Manager, Finance & Accounts of the respondent no.1 had prepared a note-sheet dated 8th May, 2013 wherein it has been recorded that although, the petitioners had initially been selected for training, however, their engagement after successful completion was extended with the approval accorded by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on 29th March, 2010 and consequently the subsequent extension were all done with the approval of the Chairman-cum-Managing Directors of the respondent no.1. Such note-sheet further records that the trainees have been discharging their duties continuously, delivering the 11 WPA 25162 of 2018 with WPA 24642 of 2018 goods that too with “Colossal effort” and the said note-sheet further records that the annual report of the year 2009 -10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 were finalized far early compared to the other years and those trainees put in sizable effort for such early finalization. It has also been categorically indicated that the trainees have played a pivotal role in implementation of the system based inventory module in various units which facilitated in curbing the delay in preparation of trial balance of the units and their importance has been felt by reasons of shortage of manpower availability in the finance and accounts discipline. It is in the light of the above, that a recommendation had been made to extend the engagement of the aforesaid trainees. Although, the writ petitions have been opposed on the ground that the petition is in fact a plea for regularization, however, I find that the respondents themselves having utilized the employees without according approval to the appointment of the petitioners in the regular post in terms of the recruitment policy of 2010 seeks to interfere with the rights of the petitioners as enshrined in the Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, there is shortage of manpower, the trainees are utilized to fill in the gap. The continuous discharge of duties by the petitioners ordinarily, and having regard to the recruitment policy of the respondents cannot be said to be back door entry since, the respondents themselves have proceeded to formulate a policy for selecting eligible candidates through walk-in-interview and campus 12 WPA 25162 of 2018 with WPA 24642 of 2018 interview in the institute of repute. If the petitioners were not successful, the respondents ought not to have extracted the service from the petitioners in the guise of retaining the petitioners as trainees. Imparting practical training, in my view, cannot be permitted to continue for more than one and half decades. The judgment delivered in the case of Umadevi (3) (supra), which was rendered to curtail the practice of backdoor entries has been set up by the respondents to fraudulently extract work from the petitioners by treating them as trainees without engaging them on regular basis. The petitioners are being engaged for extended periods in roles which are integral to the organization’s functioning. Continuous engagement of the petitioners as trainees not only contravenes labour standard but also exposes the organization to legal challenge and undermines employees’ morale, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already deprecated such practice in the case of Jaggo (supra). In the case of Shripal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also recognized that the employer should not be permitted to utilize manpower by misuse of ‘Temporary’ labels. 8. In the light of the above, I am of the view that the services of the petitioners cannot be continued by treating them trainee any further. Since, the respondent no.1 has been enjoying the services of the petitioners and have been benefited from their service to a great extent as has been recognized in the minutes prepared by the Manager/Finance of the respondent no.1, the petitioners should 13 WPA 25162 of 2018 with WPA 24642 of 2018 forthwith be regularized with immediate effect against the posts which were directed to kept vacant in terms of the interim orders passed by this Court on 7th December, 2018 in both the matters, and should be treated at par with the Junior Executive (Finance) from the date of filing of the writ petition. All consequences shall follow. 9. The writ petitions along with the connected applications also stand disposed of. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) Later: Mr. Koley, learned advocate representing the respondent no.1, prays for stay of operation of this judgment, the same is considered and refused. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)