Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Union Of India & Others vs Apu Das Gupta & Others on 12 January, 2017
Author: Nishita Mhatre
Bench: Nishita Mhatre
1
14 12.01.2017
rpan Ct. No.01 W.P.C.T. No. 267 of 2016
Union of India & Others
Vs.
Apu Das Gupta & Others
____________
Mr. Anirban Datta
..... for the Petitioners.
Mr. A. K. Gayen,
Ms. A. A. Gayen,
Ms. J. Paul
... for the Respondents.
The instant writ petition has been preferred challenging an order dated 6th October, 2016, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in OA-818 of 2016. Records reveal that the private respondents in the instant writ petition, working under the Railways, participated in a selection process initiated vide memorandum dated 18th June, 2015 for formation of panel of seven posts of Staff & Welfare Inspector. Upon emerging to be successful in the written test they were enlisted in unreserved category. Subsequent thereto, the Railway Board adopted a decision towards exclusion of RPF/RPSF personnel from the departmental selections vide memorandum dated 6th May, 2016 and on the basis of the same the selection process in which the private respondents were successful was cancelled vide memorandum dated 23rd May, 2016 and thereafter by a memorandum dated 1st June 2016 a fresh selection notice was issued. Challenging, inter alia, the memoranda dated 6th May, 2016 and 23rd May, 2016 the private respondents approached the learned Tribunal.
Mr. Datta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the Railway Board's memoranda dated 6th May, 2016 the RPF/RPSF 2 personnel were excluded from the departmental selections under the Railways and as such, they had no right to participate in the selection process initiated vide notification dated 18th June, 2015 and accordingly, the said selection process was cancelled. Being enlisted, the private respondents did not acquire any indefeasible right towards appointment to the posts of Staff & Welfare Inspector and as such the learned Tribunal erred in law in directing the petitioners herein to proceed to finalise the panel for appointment to the post of Staff & Welfare Inspector in accordance with the recruitment rules forthwith in pursuance of the selection process initiated by the memorandum dated 18th June, 2015.
Mr. Gayen, learned advocate appearing for the private respondents/applicants submits that no RPF/RPSF personnel figured in the select list after the written test and as such question of appointment of any RPF/RPSF personnel in the said selection process does not arise and for mere participation of any RPF/RPSF personnel, the entire selection process cannot be cancelled in which the private respondents/applicants have already emerged to be successful and that the Board's circular dated 6th May, 2016 cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case.
Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. From the memorandum dated 5th April, 2016 it is explicit that only four unreserved candidates have secured qualifying marks in the written test pertaining to the said selection process. The said qualified candidates are the private respondents herein. No RPF/RPSF personnel 3 have emerged to be successful in the said selection process and as such cancellation of the entire selection process was unwarranted.
In the conspectus of facts, we are of the opinion, that there is no infirmity in the order of the learned Tribunal directing conclusion of the selection process initiated vide memorandum dated 18th June, 2015 in which the private respondents emerged to be successful. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
In view of Mr. Datta's submission to the effect that the original applications, being OA-818 of 2016, OA-902 of 2016 and OA-903 of 2016, have been disposed of by the common order dated 6th October, 2016 and that in OA- 902 of 2016 and OA-903 of 2016 there are some RPF/RPSF personnel who have qualified in the said selection process, it is made clear that we have upheld the order of the learned Tribunal dated 6th October, 2016 only in respect of OA-818 of 2016.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities as expeditiously as possible.
(Nishita Mhatre, A.C.J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)