Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Transcriber : Nandy vs Soumitra Acharyya & Ors on 22 July, 2022
22.07.2022 WPST 26 of 2022
Court : 04 The Secretary & Controller of Examinations,
Item : 06
Matter : WPST West Bengal Health Recruitment Board
Status : OP
Transcriber : nandy Vs.
Soumitra Acharyya & Ors.
Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharya, Advocate
Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh, Advocate
......for the Petitioner
Mr. Biswarup Nandy, Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Shah, Advocate
......for the Respondent
The instant writ-petition is filed assailing an
interim order dated February 10, 2021 passed by the
West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in OA 87 of
2021. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was
working in the organization on contractual basis and
on an earlier occasion participated in the selection
process taking benefit of an order of the Tribunal
whereby and whereunder he was permitted to
participate therein upon relaxation of age bar.
Unfortunately, the respondent could not emerge
successfully therefrom.
The tribunal application was filed seeking an
order that he may be permitted to participate in the
ensuing selection process upon relaxation of age bar.
It appears that he is working in the said organization
for a pretty long time and while passing an interim
order, the Tribunal permitted him to appear in the
selection process. The Tribunal was conscious of the
situation that such participation would not create any
special equity in the respondent. The Tribunal further
directed the authority not to publish the result and to
keep it in a sealed cover so that at the time of final
decision, an appropriate order may be passed.
It is argued that the judgment of the Special
Bench in case of Gobinda Chandra Mondal Vs.
Principal, Rabindra Mahavidyalaya reported in
2013 (1) CHN (CAL) 9 has its application to the facts
of the present case wherein the Special Bench has
held that there is no fetter on the part of the Court in
passing a direction upon the authority to permit the
casual/temporary employees upon relaxation of age.
It is submitted that the said Special Bench did not take
care of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of
Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish
Jayanti Lal Vaghela & Ors. reported in (2006) 2 SCC
482 wherein the Apex Court has held that if a person
is working on contractual basis, he cannot seek an
entitlement of relaxation of upper age limit.
After hearing the respective Counsel, we feel
that there is no conclusive finding returned in the
impugned order by the Tribunal. The findings are
relatable to an interim order which is prima facie in
nature and cannot have any impact at the time of final
disposal of the proceeding. Mere participation shall
not create any special equity into the respondent and
the issue whether the respondent is entitled to a
relaxation of the upper age limit, shall be decided
upon disclosure of the facts by the respective parties.
For abundant precaution, we once again
reiterate that the findings recorded in the impugned
order is tentative in nature and shall not have any
impact at the time of final disposal of the proceeding.
With these observations, the writ-petition being
WPST 26 of 2022 is disposed of. No order as to
costs.
(Harish Tandon, J.)
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)
