IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present :- Hon’ble Justice Amrita Sinha WPA 23837 of 2024 Narayan Chandra Kuiry & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the writ petitioners :- Mr. Rudranil De, Adv. Mr. Soumo Charan, Adv. For the State :- Mr. Rajarshi Basu, Adv. Mr. Ananda Dulal Sarkar, Adv. Heard on :- 27th March, 2026. Judgment on :- 27th March, 2026. Amrita Sinha, J.:- 1. The petitioners, seven in number, were deployed as Special Police Officers (in short, ‘SPOs’) by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Purulia in the year 2012. They were required to guard trains throughout the day and night, especially in the Left Wing Extremist (in short ‘LWE’) affected areas. 2. They have filed the instant writ petition in September 2024 with the allegation that they have been illegally and arbitrarily disengaged from service with effect from 1st August, 2023. A representation was addressed to 2 the Officer-in-Charge of Bagmundi Police Station on 19th June, 2024 with a request to permit them to join service. As there was no response from the end of the respondent authority, the instant writ petition has been filed. 3. It has been submitted that thirty SPOs were appointed on the same day. All thirty of them were demobilized but thereafter the authority, for reasons best known, permitted nineteen of them to re-join duty but the rest eleven of them were not allowed to join. Out of the eleven, the instant writ petition has been filed by seven. 4. It has been submitted that the reason for not permitting the petitioners to resume duty has never been disclosed. The State cannot discriminate between two similarly circumstanced persons. If the authority permitted nineteen SPOs to re-join duty, the authority ought to have permitted the balance eleven to re-join on the same date. The petitioners allege discrimination by the authority. 5. In support of the submission that the State ought not to discriminate between two similarly circumstanced persons, learned advocate for the petitioners relies on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in (1991) 1 SCC 212 wherein the Court held that the requirement of complying with Article 14 should extend even in the sphere of contractual matters for regulating the conduct of the State. The requirement of Article 14 is the duty to act fairly, justly and reasonably. 3 6. As regards the issue of regularization, learned advocate for the petitioners relies on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2024 INSC 1034 wherein the Court held that it is imperative for Government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, Government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that are meant to embody. 7. It has been argued that the petitioners were in service for a considerable period of time on and from the year 2012 till they were disallowed to join in September 2024. The work in which they were engaged is perennial in nature. Instead of regularizing them in service, the authority has, with mala fide intension, restrained them from joining duty. 8. The petitioners pray for a direction upon the respondents to permit them to join their respective duties and to regularize them in service. 9. Learned advocate representing the State respondents opposes the prayer of the petitioners. The report filed by the Superintendent of Police, Purulia signed on 23rd September, 2024 is relied upon. 4 10. On a perusal of the report, it appears that the SPOs were deployed to guard the railway tracks in the interest of passengers’ security on Kharagpur-Medinipur-Adra and Kharagpur-Tatanagar (West Bengal portion) rail route. The SPOs were getting their honorarium of Rs.3,000/- per month from the Security Related Expenditure Scheme of the Ministry of Home Affairs. The SPOs were engaged among the active sources of the LWE police stations. They were to provide information about the activities of LWE throughout the rail route and keep the police informed about the local input in connection with subversive activities of the relevant area. Their deployment was purely contractual for a specific purpose to deal with the situation necessitated at the material point of time. 11. A report was submitted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Jhalda, Purulia before the Superintendent of Police, Purulia against thirty- six SPOs deployed under the Bagmundi and Joypur Police Stations. The said SPOs were found to be indisciplined, reluctant and irregular in their duties. They were reluctant to perform their assigned task and failed to collect and provide any information about LWE activities which was their primary duty. 12. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Jhalda, Purulia requested the Superintendent of Police, Purulia to demobilize them for their unsatisfactory performance/inactivity of duty and proposed to deploy new local youths having good reputation in the locality and good connection in ground level for the same purpose. 5 13. Relying on the aforesaid report of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Jhalda, the Superintendent of Police, Purulia disengaged the thirty-six SPOs from the month of August 2023. After disengagement, the activities of the said SPOs were reviewed. On review, it was found that only twenty of them may be reengaged upon caution. Accordingly, twenty SPOs were cautioned to perform their duty without any negligent attitude. The said twenty SPOs were specifically briefed about their duties namely:- 1. To guard the railway track with a view to ensure safety of passengers traveling in train as the police station has been considered as LWE affected. 2. Collect the intelligence on ground level in connection with safety and security of railway track in LWE affected areas. 3. To collect the information of the local area and pass on the same to the Officer in Charge, Bagmundi police station for safety and security of railway track. 4. To track the movement of LWE cadres throughout the railway route and keep the local police informed accordingly. 14. Identity cards were issued from the concerned police stations to the SPOs to avoid harassment from the railways or other authority during their duty period on the rail route. Rest of the demolilized SPOs was found to be extremely casual and they lacked required potential to collect information for prevention of subversive activities along the railway track. Their reluctant attitude, negligent conduct and irregular presence at the assigned duty do not suit the performance for which they have been deployed. 6 15. It has been submitted that the petitioners fall within the said twenty SPOs who have been demobilized because of unsatisfactory performance. It has also been submitted that the petitioners have not made out any case for regularization of their service. It has been denied that there has been violation of the principle enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 16. The respondents pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 17. I have heard and considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court. 18. It appears that the petitioners were deployed as SPOs for a particular purpose. The SPOs were primarily required to collect information and inputs about the terrorist activities in the railway tracks with the subject police station. The authority demobilized the petitioners as they were unable to provide the relevant inputs and they were found to be casual and irregular in their duties. 19. There is no reason to engage persons who do not satisfy and/or perform the duty for which they have been engaged. The SPOs role is very vital for maintaining public safety and also for maintaining the safety of the railway tracks. The petitioners have failed to deliver the work that they were supposed to perform. 20. Even after demobilization of their service, the authorities reviewed the performance of the demobilized SPOs and have re-appointed several of 7 them who, according to the authority, were in a position to serve the purpose for which they were engaged. Even on review of the performance of the petitioners, the respondents were not satisfied to re-engage them. 21. Jaggo (supra) deals with the regularization of temporary or contractual employees. The petitioners have miserably failed to make out a case for regularization. The petitioners’ performance has been found to be absolutely satisfactory for which they were demobilized from service. There is no question of regularizing any person who has been found to be unfit for the job for which he has been engaged. 22. In Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi (supra), the Court emphasized the role of the State in following the principles of Article 14 of the Constitution. 23. On a perusal of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it does not appear that there has been violation of Article 14 of the Constitution in any manner whatsoever. It is only because of the unsatisfactory performance of the petitioners and their indisciplined and casual attitude during their work that led to their demobilization. The same cannot be said to be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 24. The petitioners ought to appreciate that they were paid remuneration for the service they rendered to the State. The petitioners cannot expect the authority to keep them in the roll of the State without providing any service. The entire security system of the railway track and the 8 passengers will be at stake if proper information, in right time, does not reach the authority. SPOs act as valuable informers to the police. 25. The area in question is dreaded for its extremist and terrorist activities. To curb such menace which interferes with the day to day functioning of the common people and stands in the way of growth and development of the area, the SPOs were deployed. It makes no sense to pay somebody without getting any service. As collecting information is essential to prevent any notorious activity and maintain peace and normalcy in the area, the authority has rightly demobilized the inefficient ones by retaining and appointing the better ones. 26. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the Court is unable to accept the prayer of the petitioners to either permit them to re-join or direct the authority to regularize them in their service. If the Court entertains the prayer of the petitioners, then the authority will have to depend upon SPOs who are unable to deliver their work and the very purpose of their engagement will be defeated. The safety and security of the railway tracks and the passengers availing such facility will be highly infringed and valuable life and property will be at peril. 27. The Court is not inclined to exercise jurisdiction in the matter. 28. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 29. All parties shall act on the basis of a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 9 30. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Amrita Sinha, J.)