Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Satyajit Roy vs Eastern Railway on 21 May, 2018
CENTRAL ADMIMSTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JUB "RARV KOLKATA BENCH Date of order:
O.A. 35010069912014 Present Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Judicial Member Hon'ble Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member Shri Satyajit Roy, Roll No. 9110624, Son of Sambhu Nath Roy, Aged about 27 years, Residing at do Shri Shyamal cakraborty, 14/394, Ramkrishna Lane, Rathtala, Post & District - Hooghly, P.S. Chinsurah, Pin --7l21O3, -
West Bengal.
2. Shri Kuntal Datta, Roll No. 9044368, Son of RitendfjN3tlT Aged .ab, N8 years, ct Bengal.
ww sripiajurnar4C g Al Shri SouravthandraD (SC), Roll No. 9031330, Son of Late Satish Chandra Das, Aged about 24 years, Residing at 22/7/5, Firingi Danga Road, Post - MallickPara, P.S. SeramPore, Dist. Hooghly, Pin --712203, West Bengal.
5. Shri Pinaki Dutta, Roll no. 9040118, Son of Late Blswanath Dutta, Aged about 29 years, Residing at C/o Shri Gobinda Dutta Beguntala, Pearabagan, P.O. & Dist. Hooghly, P.S. Chinsurah, Pin --712103, And West Bengal.
Shri Suman Sam, Roll No. 9117942, Son of Jahar lal Sam, Aged about 32 years, 2 o.a. 350.699.2014' li Residing at RaghunathpUr Tantipara near Hanuman Mandir Town, Post & P.S. RaghunathpUr, Dist. Puruiia, Pin --7231323, West Bengal.
Md. Manzoor Islam (OBC), Roll No. 9031462, Son of Md. Mahfoozul Islam, Aged about 26 years, Residing at Viii. & Post. Anaith, P.S. Nawada Ara, 01st. Bhojpur, Bihar, Pin --802301.
Shri Samir Gaurav, Roll No. 9025690;
Son of Sanjiv Kumar, Aged about 29 years, Residing at Mangai Bazar (Dasbhuji Colony), Post & District - Munger, P.S. Kotwali, Bihar, Pin _81&201 SSrMttJ O5 .\ Ro!PF1o. 90S Road, %//f & P.S. )hat ifris J Shri VinoCKUmarUofla Roll No. 508'86r Son of Rama Prasad Gond, Aged about 35 years, Residing at Dinesh Pally (South) Opposite Rabbautalia), P.O. Pu!ba Patiay, P.S. Regent Park, Kolkata --700 013.
All the applicants are unemployed youth and they Appeared against RRB, Kolkata EmploymentNOtice N. 0312012.
Applicants
- VERSUS--
The Union of India, Service through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Fairlie Place, Kolkata --700 001.
M. 3 o.a. 350.699.2014 The Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Metro Railway, A.V. Complex, Chitpur (Opposite to R.G. Kar Medical College & Hospitals), R.G. Kar Road, Kolkata - 700 037.
The Secretary, Railway Recruitment Board, Metro Railway, A.V. Complex, Chitpur, (Opposite to R.G. Kar Medical College & Hospitals), R.G. Kar Road, Kolkata --700 037.
Respondents Mr. B.R. Das, Counsel For the Applicant Mr. J.R. Das, Counsel Mr. B.L. Gangopadhyay, Counsel For the Respondents < )r. Nandita Chatterlee, _\ i'-. A\\tIItt Aggrieved at fnsel ctio "4rticiili in response to th I ave filed te instant application EmploymentNotice No.C1201 seeking the following rehef:-
/urier Rule 4(5)(a) of CAT '1. An order gr nt\1 tqSfiP (Procedure) Rules, 1'987to An order direch9'The_ZeP2Pt46 àonsider the case of the applicants herein to be Thcted1apPOifl1€d according to their respective selection as well.
An order directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicants considering their order of choice in different posts or even according to convenience of the said respondent authority and declare the cut off marks but not considered.
An order directing the respondents to offer due im portanceiweightage to the qualifications being degree/diploma and also desired qualification Honors Graduate of the applicants being not considered.
An order directing the respondents to give due weightage to reserve V. nd also sbh handicapped category as per categories being SC, ST, OBC a rule.
To pass an appropriate order directing the respondents to produce the relevant records in connection with the case at the time of hearing of this original application for proper adjudication of the entire case.
An to pass such further or other order/orders and/or Direction or Directions as to this Hon'ble Tribunal may seem fit and proper."
Heard both Counsel, examined pleadinfl and perused judgments
2.
furnished in support by Ld. Counsel for applicants.
__ J
4 o.a. 350.699.2014
The case of the applicants, as submitted by their Ld. Counsel, is as ws:-
That, the applicants are all candidates who had applied in r!sponse to Employment Notice No. 3112 and had duly appeared inthe written examination, Main (2nd Stage) written examination and also in aptitude test; that the applicants had been successful in all stages.
That, the applicants had offered hiultiple choices against different categories of posts.
That, some of the applicants' possessed additional qualifications with degrees in Engineering/Technology and some others were Hons. Graduate in various science subjects.
and handicapped, That, although some of th(plibhkr, akies and also denied they were not selectedVgair accommodation in th ndi Th glfrs ipulated in the said C' 1 iecruitment notice.
( TJi stated that although
nttl
While filing the Z rig nal Aj
cut off/minimum
pn
they had prayed for informa\ti,,
-.------ .4
-cc1X' Ytra.rn... three months, no such marks vis-à-vis their of the documents under RTI, information was furnished to them.
however, the applicants filed a supplementatv affidavit in continuation to the O.A., which also forms part of the pleadings. In their supplementaTy affidavit, the applicants have further submitted that they have obtained certain information on -
allotment of normalised marks which was never disclosed in the Employment Notification and that there was no transparency in the said process of recruitment.
L 5 o.a. 350.699.204 mLt following grounds have been advanced in the application:
The selection process is non-transparent and non-judicious. That, although there was a stipulated condition of 3% handicapped quota, the handicapped applicants were not offered appointment against the said post.
That, despite having additional qualifications, no additional special weightage or consideration have been accorded. The reservation principle has not been adhered to and the basic/cut off marks upto which such selection was effected was never disclosed to the applicant.
While making his submissions, the Ld. Counsel for the applicant by the respondents in strongly argued agains the selection: / Ld. Counsel for the
(a) Norma such principles of Eq of weflt against the
(b)The appearing for the post of hands on from the website of Research Assistant Station M Designs and StaI)d5 Organization (RDSO) wherein the composition of the Test Battery referred only to 4 categories of aptitude test, namely, Intelligence test, Selective Attention Test, Spatial Scanning Test and Personality Test.
According to the Id. Counsel for the applicants, as neither the principle of normalisation of marks nor a 5th category of aptitude test had been disclosed in the recruitment notice, the respondents cannot adopt such arbitrariness in the selection process by changing the criteria after the selection process has been notified.
--fl ;--.--
6 o.a. 350.699.2014 / in support1 the Ld. Counsel for the applicants has furnished judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in (i)Tej Prakash Pathak& others v. Rajasthan High Court & others. (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 353 (ii) K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841.
Reply has been furnished on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 namely,
4. the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board, Metro Railway and the SecretaTy, Railway Recruitment Board, Metro Railway.
ued that although the Ld. Counsel for The respondents1 at the outset, arg the applicants have argued against the principle of normalisation as well as the aptitude test conducted by RDSO, which is the specialised agency of Railway Recruitment Board to hold psychometric/aptitude test, the said RDSO, namely, 1troacpynot le been impleaded as a Research Design & Standards I can be made necessary respondent otjl application or in the against the process a1bpd b r ued - the instant selection In their pleadinole resp we 54/2012 read with notice was pursuant to a difi,t1(said Employment Notice dated 21.7.2013 whereby certain guidelines were brougOwaTmatbon of the candidates.
That, the Railway Board had also issued directions dated 8.10.2013 (R-4 to the reply) on the procedure to be adopted for declaring panel for NTPC (Graduate Categories) against CEN No. 03/2012 and broad guidelines have 0TIunitywise merit lists been laid down emphasising on the fact that separate are to be prepared and among candidates who have given opti9n, candidates with higher merit are to be considered first for empanelment. The said guidelines, therefore, have underscored thai merit was the only consideration for selection against recruitment notice No. 3/2012. i_7 /1 i oa 3506992014
9. / That, the principle of normalisation of marks have been decided UpOfl vide Railway Board's notification dated 30.10.2007 which states as follows:-
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (RAILWAY BOARD) New Delhi, dated: 30,10.2007 No. E(RRB)/2007I25/2' The Chairmen, -
All Railway Recruitment Boards.
Sub: Normalisation of marks after holding examination for more than one session/day clarification reg. Ref.: Item No. 1 of RRCB meeting held on 25.10.2000.
A copy of minutes of RRCB meeting referred to above is enclosed. It is clarified that wherever written examination is conducted in more than one normalization of marks is required to be session or on more than one day4 done and a second stage wc l-iS€tff!patT?tNP a single session shall be 4 (combbr of vacancies.
conducted, calling candidäf'% 10 times the A Modgl) 'ireCtor, Estt. (RRB) ( ai way Board"
Gd losed the minutes of The said ordertflorma1 i5 Lt to follow an unified RRCB meeting held on 2S.(pO .!Pwhith in more than one method of equalisation session.
That, as aptitude tests are required for safety category posts, such tests are invariably conducted for posts of Assistant Station Master and Traffic Assistant and scores obtained by candidates are converted into "T" scores. To qualify in such aptitude tests the candidate must score a "T" score equal to 42 and above in each test;
That, there may be five to six attributes while testing the aptitude of the candidates.
That, the final merit list in the safety category are prepared by adding the marks obtained by the candidates in written examination and aptitude test, wherein the ratio of marks obtained in the written examination and aptitude test is 8 0.3. 350.699.2014, 70:30. Thus the normalised marks obtained by a candidate in the written examination are converted out of 70 and total marks obtained in Aptitude test is converted out of 30, so that final marks are achieve.d against a total of 100.
In their pleadings, the respondents have also referred to the Hon'ble Apex Courts order in the case of Andhra Pradesh vs. V. Sadanandam & ors., 1989 AIR 2060, 1989 5CR (3) 342.
ISSUE The issues that arise for adjudication in the instant application is:
5.
Whether the selection criteria were altered after issue of recruitment Notice No. 03/2012.
Whether the princ'øt & a1iton!n2rmali5at10n of marks and to the principles holding of 5 caigorie P11, tespare N F.AIii of transpareY anik,e ame 4oAits to amendment of
-! Jf selection pri,ria. I e tof apo.tment as claimed for Whether ?'andida a ? \\ / in the instant a pfita i 6 (i) & (i i) The most material doc en or the purposes of analysing the issues as above would be the Recruitment Notice No. GEM 03/2012 as annexed as A-I" to the application and "R-I" to the reply. The relevant extracts are reproduced below:-
Stages of Exam:
(a) Common PrelImInary Examination (I.e. stngo I) for all the notified categories.
(b)Main (Second stage) Exam for Cat No. 1&2 - followed by Verification of documents.
Main (Second stage) Exam for Cat No. 3&4 - followed by verification of documents.
Main (Second stage) Exam for Cat. No, 5&6, qualifying typing test followed by Verification of documents. Main (Second stage) Exam for Cat No. 7&8, aptitude test followed by Verification of documents."
9 o.a. 350.699.2014 This has been indicated in the very beginning of the Recruitment Notice .
1land candidates have been directed to note the stages of exam.
r F This has been once again reiterated at para 7.07 of the said recruitment notice, which is reproduced below:-
"7.07 Stage of Exam
a) Common Preliminary Examination (i.e. stage I) for all the notified categories.
Main (second stage) Exam for Cat No. 1 & 2 - followed by Verification of documents.
Main (second stage) Exam for Cat No. 3 & 4 - followed by verification of documents.
Main (second stage) Exam for Cat No. 5 & 6, qualifying typing test followed by Verification of documents.
Main (second stage) Exam for Cat No. 7 & 8, aptitude test followed by verification of documents. Based on the performance of candidates in the Main (second stage) Examination and skill test for Cat No. 5 & 6 /aptitude test for Cat No. 7 & 8, the candidates equal to the number of vacancies will be called for document verification in themain list. In addition 50% extra candidate shall also be They shall be considered for empanelrtte\'only if ere in empanelment from the main list. Durin'à Iuae r ationthe\andidate wUl have to produce their origir(acertifite 4 te of e1rtcation as liable to be forfeited?
In the said advepimen th o owirw a een rLerttioned with reference to persons with d1s3litY: Al j The community-wise v\acanc7<ition f ?2&esaid/categories as revised / 7 are given below:-
-
SI. Catg. Name of Railway URi'SC sr OBC Total Ex.SM PH Suitability
No. No. the Post _______ for PH
1 1 commerical SER 0 8 4 10 25 2 3 Suitable
Apprentice (OH- for OH
4 1 & (OA, OL,
(9300-
34800 GP 2- HH- BL, OAL,
0 0 0 2 0 2) MWO &
4200) HR
This has been further explained In para 10.01 where 3% of the vacancIes has been kept reserved against Physically Handicapped quota that pending further orders except the Categories wherever indicated as suitable under the column, "suitability for persons with disability."
One of the grounds noted in the application is that despite 3% reservation against Physically Handicapped quota, the handicapped persons amongst the
10 o.a. 350.699.2014 applicants have not been accommodated. Para 10,01 category states that 3% of / vacancies has been kept vacant against Physically Handicapped quota pending further orders except the categories wherever indicated as suitable under the column: -
,.,'suitability for persons with disability."
and that those candidates, who come under persons with disabilities can submit applications for the post indicated as suitable under the column "suitability with persons with disability."
Upon referring to the revised vacancies in the recruitment notice, it is seen there is only one community namely Commercial Apprentice", who have been found suitable for PH. Hence, the three vacancies kept reserved for Commercial to merit and in case the Apprentice will be filled up by P1 le'tion on the basis of their applicants do not qualify in disabled status alone. / ! Lh& ightage should have AnothS ground ledin arlous disciplines of been accorded given entire ii(qh)nofice however, there are science/technology.
indications/ statements on t1f additional qualifications bouV Hence, this claim of the applicants The Original Application questions the normalisation principle adopted by the respondents stating thereby that no condition regarding so-called "normalised points" has been mentioned in the said recruitment notice dated 12.5.2012.
Normalisation, as used in the Indian context, is a process for ensuring that students are neither disadvantaged by the difficulty of exams when exams are held across multiple candidates, venues and shifts and when each shift has a different question paper. The normalised score is calculated by consIderIng the difficulty level of each set. Because of the variation in difficulty level of question sets, normalisation /equaliation is made on the score of aspirants on the basis of date and shifts across the country so that no candidate is at a disadvantage
11 o.a. 350.699.214 just because he/she had attempted a difficult set of question and this process of / equating marks is called normalisation.
Here we turn to Annexure R-5 to the reply which was issued on 30.10.2007.The date of the recruitment notice was 12.5.2012. Hence1 the Railway Board's direction dated 30.10.2007 was promulgated well before the date of the recruitment notification and cannot be presumed as an afterthought. or a change in selection criteria. Ld. Counsel f&r the applicant has argued that in the minutes of the RRC meeting held on 25,10.2000 (R-5 to the reply) normalisation is confined only to a situation when There are two sets of question papers and that the formula as evolved is relevant only when two sets of question papers are involved and does not apply if there are more than 2 sets of question papers.
Herein, we, however, refer to the stphfàajhhaid minutes, which states as follows:-
"It was decided thi er
d
the examination
in three session,
same precaution
same proportionr
revmwue.,uj
-
irman'. e should follow the
comhnities to be called in
eqifIi2ation of marks of the
three sets of prelib v restlt(sj'aA &Il 'asvnoldina btdfi nal examination."
Hence, it.transpires of thidiöiotwere not confined to a
situation where only two in circulation and that the
logic was extendable to more than two sets of questions.
Theoretically the formula:
xn = (S2/Si )*(XXa ) +
I
can be extended as
Xn = (S3/Si)*(XX81) + Yav in case of three sets of question papers and so on where Si is the standardized set.
While deliberating on the normalisationfequalisation principle, we are guided by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunil Kumar & etc. v. Bihar Public Service Commission & ors., delivered on 14.10.2015 arising out of SLP 12 (Civil) Nos. 11652 of 2014 with SLP (Civil) No. 17816 of 2014, wherein the Hon'ble Court has held as follows:-
12 o.a. 350.699.2014 We cannot understand the law to be imposing the requirement of "21.
adoption of moderation to a particular kind of examination and scaling to others. Both are, at best, opinions, exercise of which requires an indepth consideration of questions that are more suitable for the experts in the field. Holding of public examinations involving wide and varied subjects/disciplines is a complex task which defies an instant solution by adoption of any singular process or by a strait jacket formula. Not only examiner variations and variation in award of marks in different subjects are issues to be answered, there are several other questions that also may require to be dealt with. Variation in the strictness of the questions set in a multi-disciplinary examination format is one such fine issue that was coincidentally noticed in Sanjay Singh (supra). A conscious choice of a discipline or a subject by a candidate at the time of his entiy to the University thereby restricting his choice of papers in a public examination, the standards of inter subject evaluation of answer papers and issuance of appropriate directions to evaluators, in different subjects are all relevant areas of consideration. All such questions and, may be, several others not identified herein are required to be considered, which questions by their vee'y nature should be left to the expert bodies in the field, including, the Public Service comrnisions. The fact that such bodies including the Commissions have erred or have acted in less than a responsible manner exercise of the judicial power which in the past cannot be a reason for.a free- by its very nature will havetPd$i!Tø.9rPC&4to be, normally, limited to instances of arbitrary or rmjThflde exercise 'cfftyo.Wer.
.t iaflxxx A 'b absey pf any, plea of mala
22.
fide and the tjnigrm EpptJ5tàJ iitf h prinçjplès adopted by the j8solutijaI/d?tJafY, 20i1 would lead us to the Commission by us of ft7 bt p njpprop7la(e case for exercise of conclusion that th'e'p'esent Wsej'½)bf reaäons in the aforesaid the power of judicial rdZP 7TI resolution, on whic\m(Jdbtit1)55 has bee)?fai-.y telf, cannot.justify such interference when the äciio"1DrfrsC4WZ 'os15ot disclose any gross or palpable unreasonableNes to the Chairman, Alit ia Rec. Board & anr. V. K. Shyam We also refer Kumar & ors. Civil Appeal Nos. 5675-5677 of 2007 delivered on 6.5.2010 wherein it has been held as under:-
"29. Wednesbuty principle of unreasonableness as such has not been replaced by the doctrine of proportionality though that test is being applied more and more when violation of human rights is alleged.
30. Wednesbuty and proportionality - Wednesbu'Y applies to a decision which is so reprehensible in its defiance of logic or of acqepted moral or ethical standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the issue to be decided could have arrived at it proportionality as a legal test is capable of being more precise and fastidious than a reasonableness test as well as requiring a more intrusive review of a decision made by a public authority which requires the courts to 'assess the balance or equation' struck by the decision maker. proportionality test in some jurisdictions is also described as the "least injurious means" or "minimal impairment" test so as to safeguard fundamental right of citizens and to ensure a fair balance between individual rights and public interest. Suffice to say that 13 o.a. 350.699.2014 there has been an overlapping of all these tests in its content and structure, it is difficult to compartmentalize or lay down a straight jacket formula and to say that Wednesbuiy has met with its death knell is too tall a statemenf Let us, however, recognize the fact that the current trend seems to favour proportionality test but Wednesbury has not met with its judicial burial and a state burial, with full honours is surely not to happen in the near future.
31. Proportionality, requires the Court to judge whether action taken was really needed as well as whether it was within the range of courses of action which could reasonably be followed. Proportionality is more concerned with the aims and intention of the decision-maker and whether the decision-maker has achieved more or less the correct balance or equilibrium. Courts entrusted with the task of judicial review has to examine whether decision taken by the authority is proportionate, i.e. well balanced and harmonious, to this extent court may indulge in a merit review and if the court finds that the decision is proportionate, it seldom interferes with the decision taken and if it finds that the . decision is disproportionate i.e. if the court feels that it is not well balanced or harmonious and does not stand to mason it may tend to interfere.
Leyland and Anthony on Administrative law (5th edn. QUP, 2005) at p. 331 has arpfj
1.-
administrative action
ought not to achieve its desired
results in evç use a sledgehammer
to crack S rii often understood to
bring the brits of the decision."
Courts hyb4o dev7?gjati Iiktsible al'rd principal approach to proportionality tll1/hat jsa'ithtflr a5 e a/ overlapping between the traditional grolYnds47O view and the)fit1p!e ci proportionality and the cases would cont?hp\[6 b>decid 4i 'Itil s'ame manner whichever principle is adopted. ropodfoáTity a he,VJojd'indicates has reference to variables or to apply the principle with various degrees of intensity and'u fferra potentially deeper inquiry into the reasons, projected by the decision maker:"
Hence, we are of the considered view, that normalisation principle or equalization principle is adopted in all selection process wherever there are multiple sets of question papers on account of a large number of candidates appearing in different venues and on different dates and this normalisation be equalised principle is the only method in which the various sets of marks may by following the method of standard scores. As the decision on normalisation was taken far ahead of the recruitment notice, the applicants could have challenged the normalisation principle dated 30.10.2007 prior to appearing at the did examination which they had chosen not to and, as such as the advertisement IV 14 o.a. 350.699.2014 not preclude the normalisation principle, it cannot be stated unequivocally that the recruitment notice had precisely and deliberately eschewed the process of r equalisation of different sets of marks with standard scores.
The next issue raised by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant is against the aptitude test and particularly the manner in conducting the same. It is nobody's case that aptitude tests were not listed in the notified stages of exathination and also at para 7.07 of the same. The only question that remains to be determined is whether the respondents or rather their expert organisation RDSO were correct in conducting five tests where only 4 categories have been demonstrated in their practice material for ASM. As stated above, the aptitude test had the following components:-
Intelligence test. is traiN. Selective Attenif 0 041 Spatial sc niflg Personality jt. Technicafly .speLg, varioUs attributes depending on the Some well known personality tests with (a) In the Zamara test 10 noted.
In Briggs - Meyer (MBTI) 16 indicators are enumerated.
In the highly accurate personality test,. 30 attributes have been suggested.
In the 5 factor model, 5 attributes of personality test are included.
It is the RDSO which should be ideal respondent in this case to explain the specific attributes adopted. Since, however, RDSO has not been made a respondent, the scope of their reply does not arise and we do not Wish to del'ie with this any further apart from concluding that personality tests may comprise attributes/ranging from 5 to 30 as noted above.
V Pt 16 o,a. 350.699.2014 minimum marks for interview had never been adopted by High Court earlier for selection of District & Sessions Judges (Grade II)."
These ratio cannot be made applicable in the instant matter as in both the cited cases selection criteria was actually altered post the examination which is not so in the instant case.
(iii) Now, we come to the final issue on whether the applicants have a right to appointment as claimed for in their application:-
We are here guided by DhananjOy Malik v. State of Uttaranchal 2008(4) 5CC 171 wherein the Hon'ble Court held that "unsuccessful candidates are estopped from challenging the selection criteria? While dismissing the appeal of held that when educational the non-selected candidates, the Court c'dStre itself and if they did qualifications were clearly,;ihdiC'aêd in the ac cNthe selection process have any valid objecti(nhey 1 quite aware of the without participating in te sam eMlad laid down as to scope of aptitude teht &dn /? % .
ad t in this regard. The exactly how many Railway Board on applicant did not selection the principle of normalisation principle either estoppel applies.
In Public Service CommissIon v. Mamta Bisht 2010 (5) SCJ 339 the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that if the person challenges the selection process successful candidates or some of them are necessary parties. Herein no successful candidate has been impleaded.
Further in Rani Laxml Bal Shetriya v. Chand Beharl Kapoor 1999 (1) LBESR 180 SC it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that no right accrued to the respondents on being included in the list of successful candidates nor can r their non-appointment be held to be arbitrary or discriminatory.
17 o.a. 350.699.2014 Hence, we are of the considered view, that the appliOatiofl has no merit and is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
There will be no orders on costs.
(Manjula Das) (Dr. Nandita Chatterjee) Judicial Member Administrative Member sp