Union Of India & Ors vs Prasanna Kumar Das
2023 Latest Caselaw 6698 Cal

04.10.2023
Item No.06
Court No.11
Avijit Mitra
                        WPCT 174 of 2023

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

                      Union of India & ors.
                          - Versus -
                     Prasanna Kumar Das

               Mr. Sauvik Nandy,
               Mr. Subrata Santra
                                For the petitioners
               Mr. S.K. Mohapatra,
               Mr. Sudipta Ghosh
                                For the respondent

The present writ petition has been preferred

challenging an order dated 13th June, 2023 passed in

an original application being O.A. 350/01242/2018.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts are that

the respondent's father submitted an application dated

27th October, 2005 for appointment of his son, namely,

Prasanna Kumar Das (in short, Prasanna) as a

substitute in a Group-D post in response to a general

invitation by the respondent no.2. Prasanna emerged

to be successful in the selection process and his name

was incorporated at serial no.121 in the panel

pertaining to Graduates. However, in view of a

typographical error, his name was incorporated as

'Prasanta Kumar Das' in place and stead of 'Prasanna

Kumar Das'. Accordingly, in response to a notice

dated 2nd November, 2005, calling for documents for

verification, Prasanna supplied the relevant certificates

along with a representation dated 9th November, 2005

for correction of his name in the panel. As no steps

were taken by the respondents, Prasanna preferred an

original application being OA No.340 of 2012, however,

the same was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, Prasanna

preferred a writ petition being WPCT 143 of 2016 but

by an order dated 17th June, 2016, the writ petition

was dismissed observing inter alia that Prasanna had

failed to take necessary steps for correction of his

name in the panel of the year 2005. Aggrieved

thereby, Prasanna preferred a Special Leave Petition

which was disposed of by an order dated 7 th May,

2018, directing Prasanna to submit a representation

before the railway authorities for consideration.

Pursuant thereto, a representation was duly submitted

on 28th August, 2016, but the same was rejected by

the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell (in short,

RRC) on 26th July, 2018. Aggrieved thereby, Prasanna

preferred the original application being OA No.

350/01242/2018 which was dismissed on 1st October,

2021. Challenging the same Prasanna preferred a writ

petition being WPCT 89 of 2021 which was disposed of

by an order dated 18th February, 2022 setting aside

the order of the Chairman, RRC dated 26 th July, 2018

and the matter was remanded to the learned Tribunal

for reconsideration. Pursuant to such direction the

learned Tribunal reconsidered the matter and passed

the order impugned in the present writ petition.

Mr. Nandy, learned advocate appearing for the

writ petitioners/respondents in the original application

submits that the engagement of substitute in the

railways was practice of the bygone era and such

engagement of substitute is now made only in

emergent situations. In view of regular recruitments,

the engagement of substitutes is no more warranted.

Such argument as advanced was glossed over by the

learned Tribunal and no finding was returned on the

said issue.

He further submits that in a matter pertaining

to engagement of substitutes the Hon'ble High Court

in a writ petition being WPCT 470 of 2013 has

deprecated the practice of engagement of substitutes

and has injuncted the railway authorities from

appointing the applicants in the original application as

substitutes. The said order was also not taken into

consideration by the learned Tribunal while passing

the impugned order.

Mr. Nandy further argues that Prasanna did not

file any application for correction of his name in the

panel within the stipulated period in the year 2005.

The issue was agitated by Prasanna belatedly in the

year 2012. The inclusion of a name of an incumbent

in a panel also does not create any indefeasible right

in his favour to be appointed. The said issues, as

argued, were also not taken into consideration by the

learned Tribunal. In support of the arguments

reliance has been placed upon the judgments delivered

in the cases of Union of India and others Vs. Kali Dass

Batish & anr. reported in (2006) 1 SCC 779; State of

U.P. and others Vs. Rajkumar Sharma and others

reported in (2006) 3 SCC 330 and Union of India and

others Vs. Kishorilal Bablani reported in (1999) 1 SCC

729.

Per contra, Mr. Mahapatra, learned advocate

appearing for the respondent/applicant in the original

application submits that while the passing the order

dated 26th July, 2018 impugned in the original

application, the Chairman, RRC traversed beyond the

contours of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court dated 7th May, 2018 and as such the said order

was rightly set aside by a Coordinate Bench of this

Court in the earlier writ petition being WPCT 89 of

2021. The said order had not been challenged by the

writ petitioners. In the said conspectus and as proper

representation was submitted by Prasanna for

rectification of his name in the panel, the learned

Tribunal directed the writ petitioners to offer

appointment to Prasanna.

He further argues that in view of the order

passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the writ

petitioners are estopped from rejecting Prasanna's

claim on a purported ground that engagement of

substitutes was a practice of the bygone era.

Heard the learned advocates appearing for the

respective parties and considered the materials on

record.

The argument of Mr. Nandy that Prasanna did

not submit any application for rectification of his name

in the panel within the period stipulated is not

acceptable to this Court inasmuch as the documents

annexed at pages 37 to 58 of the writ petition clearly

reveal that such rectification was submitted to the

respondent no.4 on 9th November, 2005 together with

all documents as called for by the notice dated 2 nd

November, 2005 duly attested by the railway

authorities. The reply given to Prasanna's application

under the Right to Information Act, as annexed at page

72 of the writ petition, also reveals that the writ

petitioners duly received the bio-data and documents

of Prasanna. He also cannot be penalised for the

typographical error of his name in the panel. The

learned Tribunal rightly observed that such 'wrong

mentioning of the name in the short list was not on any

false representation or false declaration'.

The next argument of Mr. Nandy that the

engagement of substitutes in the railways was a

practice of the bygone era and that such engagement

is no more warranted cannot be accepted as a ground

for rejection of Prasanna's claim inasmuch as the

Hon'ble Supreme Court had restricted such

consideration only on the issue as to 'whether the

petitioner had made an application in time or not'.

The order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this

Court in the writ petition being WPCT 470 of 2013 was

an interim order passed upon a prima facie

satisfaction that the substitutes were being engaged at

random without following any procedure. The learned

Tribunal duly considered the said order and found the

same to be distinguishable.

It is well known that a decision is an authority

for what it decides and not what can logically be

deduced therefrom. Even a slight distinction in fact or

an additional fact may make a lot of difference in

decision making process. There is no dispute as

regards the proposition of law as laid down in the

judgments in the cases of Kali Dass Batish & anr.

(supra), Rajkumar Sharma and others (supra) and

Kishorilal Bablani (supra), upon which reliance has

been placed by Mr. Nandy, however, the same are

distinguishable on facts.

Upon dealing with the factual issues, the

learned tribunal arrived at specific findings and we do

not find any error in the same.

Accordingly, the writ petition, being WPCT 174

of 2023 is dismissed.

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

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon

compliance of all requisite formalities.

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