Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Subhash Kumar & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 July, 2013
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
Bench: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
1
30.07.13
38/akd
W.P.C.T. 247 of 2013
Subhash Kumar & Ors.
-Vs-
Union of India & Ors.
..................................................................
Mr. Arpa Chakraborty, ... ... for the petitioners Mr. Swapan Banerjee ... ... for the respondents (Railways) The petitioners herein filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench being O.A. 491 of 2012 along with several other persons for redressal of their grievances. The said application being O.A. 491 of 2012 along with several other similar types of applications were disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench by the common judgment and order dated 19th March, 2013.
Some of the applicants of O.A. 491 of 2012 filed a writ petition before this court assailing the aforesaid common judgment and order dated 19th March, 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench and the said writ petition was registered before this court as W.P.C.T. 178 of 2013. The aforesaid writ petition was heard in presence of the learned Advocate of the respondent 2 authorities and finally decided on 5th June, 2013 as hereunder:
"For the aforementioned reasons, we are unable to uphold the decision of the respondent authorities regarding cancellation of the candidature of the petitioners and refuse to affirm the decision of the learned Tribunal as mentioned in the judgment and order dated 19th March, 2013.
Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 19th March, 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 491 of 2012 and also quash the decision of the respondent authorities regarding cancellation of the candidature of the petitioners for recruitment to Group 'D' post against employment notice no. 0106 on the ground of mismatch of handwriting/signature with the application form. The respondent authorities are directed to take appropriate decision in respect of the petitioners afresh without any further delay after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the concerned candidates, namely the petitioners herein and also granting an opportunity of cross examining the handwriting experts who found mismatch of handwriting/signature of the petitioners with the respective application form.
Needless to mention that the respondent authorities will also communicate the decision to the petitioners herein immediately after de novo consideration of the matter in terms of this order.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, we dispose of this writ petition without awarding any costs."
The present petitioners also being the applicants in O.A. 491 of 2012 filed this writ petition challenging the common judgment and order dated 19th March, 2013 passed by the said learned Tribunal. Therefore, the fate of this writ petition will be governed by the earlier decision of this court in W.P.C.T. 178 of 2013 (Shri Shashi Bhushan Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.) since the aforesaid common judgment and order dated 19th March, 2013 was also challenged in the aforesaid writ petition. 3
The order dated 19th March, 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. 491 of 2012 has already been set aside by this court by the order dated 5th June, 2013 passed in W.P.C.T. 178 of 2013. Therefore, following the earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in W.P.C.T. 178 of 2013 on 5th June, 2013, we quash the decision of the respondent authorities regarding cancellation of the candidature of the petitioners on the ground of mismatch of handwriting/signature of the said petitioners with the respective application form.
The respondent authorities are directed to take appropriate decision in respect of the petitioners herein afresh without any further delay after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the concerned candidates namely, the petitioners herein and also granting an opportunity of cross examining the handwriting experts who found mismatch of handwriting/signature of the petitioners with the respective application form.
Needless to mention that the respondent authorities will communicate the decision to the petitioners herein immediately after de novo consideration of the matter in terms of this order.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. 4
In the facts of the present case, there will be no order as to costs.
Let urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates of the parties on usual undertaking.
(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.) (Murari Prasad Shrivastava, J.)