Ct-16 vs Aloke Union Of India & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3270 Cal

19-06-2021                     WP.CT 40 of 2021
 Item-17
                              Bipul Kumar Biswas
  Ct-16                             Versus
  Aloke                       Union of India & Ors.



                   Mr. Arka Nandi, Adv.
                   Mr. Bikram Banerjee, Adv.
                   Mr. Saikat Sutradhar, Adv.
                   Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta, Adv.
                                     ... for the petitioner.
                   Mr. Nabakumar Das, Adv.
                               ... for the North-Frontier Railway
                   Mr. Arindam Banerjee, Adv.
                               ... for the respondent

This writ petition is directed against an order

passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal

in an application under Section 19 of the Central

Administrative Tribunal Act where inter alia the

petitioner has challenged the revised normalization

formula published by the Railway Recruitment Board

on 14th December, 2020 for recruitment of various non-

technical popular categories Graduate and Under

Graduate posts published on 28th February, 2019.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the approach of the Railway Board towards

normalization of marks is arbitrary.

Our attention is drawn to an earlier circular of

30th October, 2007 where the Railway Board has

recommended more than one written examination for

normalization of marks. However, the learned counsel

for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the

normalization formula published on 5th December,

2018 was not interfered with by a Coordinate Bench in

a series of mattes. The first matter being WPCT No. 49

of 2017 and judgment delivered on 24th April, 2020. It

is submitted that the said order has been challenged by

the aggrieved writ petitioner and also by the Railway

Board and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is in seisin over

the matter. The circular that has been challenged

before the Tribunal is a subsequent circular by which

the circular dated 5th December, 2018 was revised. The

ground of challenge by the present petitioner is almost

akin to the other being thrown by the writ petitioner in

the earlier proceedings. However, it has been submitted

before us that the mode and manner of examination is

such that for evaluation of the answers no human

intervention is necessary and accordingly it is

imperative that the Railway Board should follow the

circular of 30th October, 2007 by holding a 2 nd stage

written examination instead of applying the revised

normalization formula.

We have perused the order under challenge. We

find that the learned Tribunal has taken into

consideration the order passed in the earlier

proceedings and has observed that the applicant may

participate in the selection in question without

prejudice to his rights and contentions in the pending

matter. We are of the view that the Tribunal was

justified in making the said observation, as the full

facts are required to be disclosed by an affidavit by the

Railway Board. It would not be prudent for us at this

stage to interfere with the earlier decision of the

Railway Board as the full facts are not before us.

Moreover, we feel that the Tribunal upon completion of

pleadings should decide the said issue. At the same

time we must also observe that it raises an important

issue which needs to be resolved as expeditiously as

possible. We are of the view that the interest of the

applicant has been adequately protected by the order

by the Tribunal.

In view of the pandemic situation the selection

process would not be over shortly. Once the selection

process proceeds to a considerable extent after the

written examination is over and if in the meantime the

Tribunal is unable to decide the matter on merits, it

would be open for the writ petitioner to approach the

Tribunal for an interim order, if so advised.

The Railway Recruitment Board shall file affidavit

within two weeks from date upon prior service to Mr.

Bikram Banerjee, learned counsel representing the writ

petitioner. Reply, if any, shall be filed within two weeks

thereafter.

The matter shall be immediately mentioned after

completion of pleadings before the learned Tribunal.

The aforesaid direction as to completion of

pleadings is peremptory. In the event the Railway

Board fails to file the affidavit within two weeks from

date, it would be open for the writ petitioner to

approach the Tribunal with a prayer for fixing the

matter at the earliest

It is made clear that we have not gone into the

merits of the case and the Tribunal should decide the

matter being uninfluenced by any observation made by

us in this order.

WPCT 40 of 2021 is accordingly disposed of.

(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)