Samar Chandra Dutta & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 4189 Cal

13.07.2023 Item No.07 Court No.11 Avijit Mitra WPCT 154 of 2017 with IA No. 2 of 2019 (Old No. CAN 2529 OF 2019)

In re: An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;

And

Samar Chandra Dutta & ors.

- Versus -

Union of India & ors.

Mr. P. C. Das ....for the petitioners Mr. Indrajeet Dasgupta ....for the Union of India

The present writ application has been preferred

challenging an order dated 27th July, 2017 passed in

the original application being, O.A. 350/00872/2017

by which the application was dismissed on the ground

of limitation.

As we have invited Mr. Das, learned advocate

appearing for the petitioners to advance his argument

on merits, the earlier order of dismissal of the

restoration application dated 31st January, 2019 is

recalled and the application being CAN No. 10471 of

2017 is restored to its original file and number. The

application filed for recalling the order dated 31 st

January, 2019 being CAN No. 2529 of 2019 is

disposed of. The initial order of dismissal of the writ

petition dated 24th October, 2017 is also recalled and

the writ petition is restored to its original file and

number and the application filed for recalling the order

dated 24th October, 2017 being CAN 10471 of 2017 is

also allowed.

Mr. Das submits that the learned Tribunal erred

in law in rejecting the petitioners' claim on the ground

of limitation without appreciating that there was no

intentional delay on the part of the petitioners to

approach the learned Tribunal. The argument that

participants in the same selection process and

similarly situated with the petitioners have been

granted the benefit, as prayed for by the writ

petitioners herein, by an order dated 29 th January,

2014 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in

WPCT No.53 of 2008 was also not considered and the

application was mechanically dismissed. It was

iniquitous to deny identical reliefs to the petitioners.

According to Mr. Das, the learned Tribunal erred

in law in refusing to extend similar benefits to the

applicants on the ground of limitation and such

refusal of discretion is derogatory to the proposition of

law laid down in the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Sharma Vs. Union of

India reported in (1997) 6 SCC 721.

Per contra, Mr. Dasgupta, learned advocate

appearing for the Union of India submits that the

petitioners herein did not even ventilate their

grievances to the appropriate authority since the year

1997 till the year 2015. It is only after the order dated

29th January, 2014 was passed in WPCT 53 of 2008

the petitioners woke up from their slumber and

approached the learned Tribunal and that too after a

period of about four years. There is no explanation of

such delay in the application and from such sequence

of facts it is explicit that the petitioners are merely

fence-sitters and for such conduct they are not entitled

to the relief and there is no infirmity in the order

impugned in the present writ petition.

He submits that after disposal of the application

being WPCT 53 of 2008 several other original

applications were filed by persons similarly situated

with the petitioners. However, such applications were

not entertained and as such they preferred several writ

petitions being WPCT nos. 119-122 of 2019 and a

coordinate Bench of this Court considering the factual

matrix dismissed the applications by an order dated

8th November, 2019 observing inter alia that the

learned Tribunal had rightly rejected the applicants'

prayers since being fence-sitters they cannot choose

their own time to seek enforcement of their rights. Let

the unreported judgment, as produced, be kept on

record.

Heard the learned advocates appearing for the

respective parties and considered the materials on

record.

Records reveal that persons similarly situated

with the petitioners filed an original application

challenging inter alia a notification issued by the

Railway Recruitment Board indicating cancellation of

the written tests conducted earlier pertaining to the

employment notice of the year 1997. Aggrieved

thereby, they approached the learned Tribunal. The

said original application was, however, dismissed.

Challenging the same, the petitioners therein preferred

a writ petition being WPCT 53 of 2008 which was

disposed of by an order dated 29 th January, 2014

directing the Railway Recruitment Board to consider

the marks obtained by the petitioners therein and to

grant appointment to those who had obtained the

minimum qualifying marks. Thereafter seeking similar

benefits, the petitioners submitted a representation on

6th July, 2015 and as the same was not considered the

original application was filed in the year 2017.

We have perused the averments made in the

original application. There is no explanation as to why

the petitioners waited since the year 1997 till the year

2015 to ventilate their grievances. The first

representation was submitted by the petitioners on 6 th

July, 2015. In the application there is also no

explanation as to why the petitioners waited for a

further period of two years to file the original

application in the year 2017. In view thereof, the

learned Tribunal, in our view, rightly dismissed the

writ petition on the ground of limitation.

The judgment delivered in the case of K.C.

Sharma (supra) is distinguishable on facts. The

petitioners did not approach the Court

expeditiously for relief. They allowed things to

happen and thereafter approached the Court to

put forward stale claims. The petitioners had been

indolent in approaching the Court and as such the

learned Tribunal rightly refused to exercise any

discretion in their favour.

In view thereof, we are not inclined to interfere

with the order impugned in the present writ petition.

The writ petition being WPCT 154 of 2017 is,

accordingly, dismissed.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if

applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee,J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)