Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Union Of India & Ors vs Sri Goutam Bose on 7 July, 2021
07.07.2021
SL No.85
Court No.16
(gc)
WPCT 59 of 2020
Union of India & Ors.
Vs.
Sri Goutam Bose
(Via Video Conference)
Mr. Anirban Mitra,
...for the Petitioners.
Mr. Sardar Amjad Ali, Sr. Adv.,
Ms. Masum Ali Sardar,
...for the Private Respondent.
The writ petition is arising out of an order passed by
the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in connection
with an application filed by the respondent praying, inter
alia, for a direction upon the present writ petitioners to issue
appropriate direction to allow the respondent to join in the
post of GDSMD, Arabani B.O.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
We have also perused the order under challenge. The facts
have been accurately summarized in Paragraph 6.5 of the
said judgment. The said paragraph is reproduced below:-
"6.5. Therefore the admitted facts from the above
discussion emerge as follows:-
(i) That a notification was issued on
30.12.2013 stating that the last date of
receipt of applications was 31.01.2014 and
the applicant, along with others were
enlisted in the selection panel, the
applicant being 5th in order of merit.
(ii) The notification does not debar an aspiring
candidate from entering into
correspondence on the process of selection.
(iii) That, while the topmost candidate on merit
had resigned from the job after 6 months,
candidate 2nd on merit did not complete
formalities within the stipulated time, and
the 3rd and 4th candidate have expressed
their unwillingness before the expiry of the
validity of the panel.
(iv) The time limit offered to the candidate 2nd
on merit, expired on 06.05.2015, and, as
per rules, could no further extension was to
be offered to the candidate as the
stipulated timeline had expired.
(v) As per rules, the panel expired on
08.05.2015.
(vi) From records, it would transpire that the
applicant had represented to the
respondents authorities for consideration of
his candidature on 06.05.2015, 7.5.2015
and 8.5.2015 (Annexures A-9, A-10 & A-6
to the O.A) respectively. His
representations followed the unwillingness
of the candidate 2nd on merit conveyed on
05.05.2015 (Annexure A-9 to the O.A).
Consequently, on 06.05.2015, the panel
remained valid and there was reasonable
scope for consideration of the case of the
applicant who was 5th in terms of merit.
Hence the respondents should have offered
him engagement subject to fulfilment of
requisite formalities."
(vii) The respondent authorities kept silent on
his representations and only chose to reject
his prayer by the speaking order in
compliance to the directions of the Tribunal
when the applicant approached the
Tribunal in first stage litigation."
The facts stated in the said sub-paragraph have not
been disputed from the Bar. On the basis of the aforesaid
admitted facts, we do not find any reason to interfere with
the order passed by the learned Tribunal. The conclusions
of the Tribunal are in Paragraphs 7 and 8 that are
reproduced below:-
"7. We are hence of the considered view that, given
the extant rules of the respondent authorities in
connection with engagement of GDS, in particular, with
reference to maintenance of panel thereon, the
applicant should have been offered engagement during
the life time of the said panel. Extending the offer to
the 2nd seniormost candidate in terms of merit on
07.05.2015 when she had categorically expressed her
unwillingness on 05.05.2015 defies any reason or logic,
such extension being contrary to the communication
dated 17.04.2015 of the respondent authorities at
Annexure R/7 to their reply which had laid down a
stipulated timeline for completion of the formalities.
8. Hence given the fact that
(a) the vacancy continues to exist,
(b) that the applicant was 5th in order of merit,
(c) that the candidates above him in merit had
either resigned or expressed their
unwillingness to join such position,
(d) that such unwillingness was conveyed
prior to expiry of the panel, and, also
(e) that the applicant had made honest
attempts to reach out to the respondent
authorities with a prayer for engagement,
leads us to the inevitable conclusion that
the respondent authorities failed to act as
per rules in rejecting the candidature of the
applicant.
Accordingly, we would quash and set aside the
speaking order dated 10.08.2015 and direct the
respondent authorities to offer engagement to the
applicant as GDSMD in Arabani Branch Office (which
reportedly remains vacant) subject to completion of
requisite formalities. The entire exercise shall be
completed within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order."
The reasoning of the Tribunal on the basis of such
admitted facts does not call for any interference. We feel
that the Tribunal has properly exercised its discretion and
the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal was just and fair.
On such consideration, we do not find any reason to
interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal.
However, having regard to the fact that this writ petition is
pending for some time, the time to complete the entire
process is extended by eight weeks from date.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition, being
WPCT 59 of 2020, stands disposed of.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
All parties shall act on the server copies of this order
duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)
