Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Bhagawan Das vs Steel Authority Of India on 19 February, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
No.T.A.350/4/2014
(Arising out of W.P.990(w) of 2009)
Date of order : 19.02.2025
Present : Hon'ble Mrs. Urmita Datta Sen, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member
1. Shree Bhagwan Das
2. Sri Satya Saran Sarkar
3. Sri Kaushik Chakraborty
4. Sri Sandip Das
5. Sri Baidyanath Bhattacharjee
6. Sri Swapan Kumar Das
7. Sri Dibakar Dutta
8. Sri Biswajit Chattopadhyay
9. Sri Param Sundar Ghosh
10. Sri Rajat Kumar Ganguly
11. Sreemanta Konar
12. Sri Pradeep Kumar Manna
13. Sri Salil Gupta
14. Sri Hiralal Kundu
15. Sri Kanti Ram Roy
16. Sri Jyotirmoy Sinha
17. Sri Suranjan Mukherjee
18. Sri Ashim Majumdar
19. Sri Nandan Chatterjee
20. Sri Manoj Kumar Mondal
21. Sri Utpal Ghanti
22. Nityananda Majhi
23. Sri Tushar Kanti Roychowdhury
24. Sri Ashis Banerjee
25. Sri Arun Kumar Banerjee
26. Sri Debdutta Roy
27. Sri Debasis Jha
28. Sri Briswar Banerjee
29. Sri Jayanta Chakraborty
30. Sri Subashis Sen
31. Sri Sabyasachi Choudhury
32. Sri Partha Sarathi Konar
33. Sri Suprabhat Prachanda
34. Sri Ujjal Kumar Majhi
35. Sri Narayan Majumdar
36. Sri Asoke Kumar Bhattacharya
37. Sri Pradipta Kumar Chatterjee
Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone=
248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West
Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc,
CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
Reason: I am the author of this document
BANDYOPADHYAY Location:
Date: 2025.02.24 14:50:35+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2
38. Sri Anupam Chandra Das
39. Sri Ashoke Kumar Majumdar
40. Sri Sujit Kumar Pandit
41. Sri Subrata Chakraborty
42. Sri Arindam Banerjee
43. Sri Subhashis Dutta
44. Munshi Harunur Rosid
45. Sri Nikhil Taron Das
46. Sri Santanu Bagchi
47. Sri Koushik Mazumder
48. Sri Rathindra Nath Majumder
49. Sri Partha Sarathi Banerjee
50. Smt. Rina Neogy
51. Sri Amiya Gopal Puitandy
52. Sri Partha Sarathi Roy
53. Sri Tarak Nath Ghatak
54. Sri Tapas Kumar Mukherjee
55. Sri Subrata Mazumdar
56. Sri Swarupananda Chandra
57. Sri Janardan Mukhopadhyay
58. Sri Saroj Kumar Mandal
59. Sri Dilip Kumar Ghosh
60. Sri Subrata Halder
61. Sri Bhuban Mohan Chakraborty
62. Sri Arabinda Kumar Das
63. Sri Chandan Bhattacharjee
64. Sri Prasanta De
65. Sagar Kumar Chowdhury
66. Sri Dipankar Rahut
67. Sri Dharani Dhar Mondal
68. Sri Asish Kumar Mal
69. Sri Pranab Raha
70. Sri Sibayan Chatterjee
71. Sri Buddhadeb Bandyopadhyay
72. Sri Pradip Sinha
73. Sri Mrinal Paul
74. Sri Bhadri Umamaheswar Rao
75. Sri Khagendra Nath Sarkar
76. Sri Dipti Kumar Das
77. Sri Shivawatar Prasad
78. Sri Kanchan Ganguly
79. Sri Swapan Kumar Roy
80. Sri Anup Kumar Chattaraj
81. Sri Dulal Chandra Biswas
82. Sri Susanta Sarkar
83. Sri Amitabha Banerjee
84. Sri Ramesh Chandra Karmakar
85. Sri Manik Kumar Singha
86. Sri Sabyasachi Bandyopadhyay
87. Sri Suprovat Mondal
Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone=
248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West
Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc,
CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
Reason: I am the author of this document
BANDYOPADHYAY Location:
Date: 2025.02.24 14:50:35+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
3
88. Sri Buddhadev Ghatak
89. Sri Amitava Chandra
90. Sri Sanjay Verma
91. Sri Ujjwal Kumar Pal
92. Sri Achintya Kumar Karmakar
93. Sri Tapas Kumar Ray
94. Sri Chandra Sekhar Mondal
95. Sri Tapan Kumar Sarkar
96. Sri Anish Debnath
97. Sri Debdas Chatterjee
98. Sri Dipankar Das
99. Sri Arnab Kumar De
100. Amitava Adhikary
101. Goutam Halder
102. Ashok Kumar Bose
103. Bidhan Chandra Halder
............Applicants
- VERSUS -
1. The Steel Authority of India Limited
a Government of India Undertaking,
service through its Chairman, having
its office at 'Ispat Bhawan' Lodhi Road,
New Delhi;
2. The Chairman, Steel Authority of India
Limited, having his office at 'Ispat Bhawan',
Lodhi Road, New Delhi;
3. The Durgapur Steel Plant, An Unit of Steel
Authority of India Limited, having its office
at 'Main Administrative Building' (Ispat
Bhawan), Durgapur-3, District - Burdwan,
West Bengal;
4. The Managing Director, Durgapur Steel
Plant, having his office at 'Main Administrative
Building' (Ispat Bhawan), Durgapur-3,
District - Burdwan, West Bengal;
5. The Executive Director (Personnel &
Administration), Durgapur Steel Plant,
having his office at 'Main Administrative
Building' (Ispat Bhawan), Durgapur-3,
District - Burdwan, West Bengal;
6. The General Manager (Personnel &
Administration), Durgapur Steel Plant,
Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone=
248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West
Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc,
CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
Reason: I am the author of this document
BANDYOPADHYAY Location:
Date: 2025.02.24 14:50:35+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
4
having his office at 'Main Administrative
Building' (Ispat Bhawan), Durgapur-3,
District - Burdwan, West Bengal;
..........Respondents
1. Sri Sourav Dey
2. Sri Pranab Pratap Singh
3. Sri Bishno Kant Ojha
4. Sri Swarup Sarkar
............Private Respondents
(Added subsequently as per order
of this Tribunal dated 26.08.2014
and 01.05.2015)
For the applicant : Mr. J. Acharya, counsel
For the respondents : Mr. N.C. Bhattacharya, counsel
Ms. A. Roy, counsel
ORDER
Urmita Datta Sen, Judicial Member The applicants in the instant T.A. are employees of Durgapur Steel Plant (now Steel Authority of India Limited) and holding the posts of Charge Man (Grade-I), Senior Supervisor, who belong to non-executive and non-technical cadre. The said company initiated a selection process for filling up the posts of Junior Officers in 2008 on the basis of a Circular dated 04.04.2008, wherein the following eligibility criteria were mentioned:-
(i) Vacancies equivalent to 10% of total eligible candidates applying for the post to be filled up;
(ii) Posts of Junior Officer is divided into technical and non-technical category;
(iii) 25% of the said posts to be filled up by Non-technical candidates and 75% by technical candidates;
(iv) Written test75%, Interview 20%, performance in last 3 tears 5%." Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document BANDYOPADHYAY Location:
Date: 2025.02.24 14:50:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 Subsequently, the Circular dated 04.04.2008 was amended vide Circular dated 14.05.2008, whereby certain other criteria were incorporated. As per Clause 4.4.1 of the earlier Circular dated 04.04.2008, a merit list was to be prepared on the basis of combined performance of the candidates in the written test, interview and past performance in descending order, which was slightly amended by incorporating "the last three years' performance rating and experience in S-8 and above grade".
Similarly, in the new Circular dated 14.05.2008, Clause 4.4.2 of Circular dated 04.04.2008 was amended by prescribing 50% marks in written test, 20% marks in interview, 15% marks in performance rating and 15% marks were kept for experience. However, the applicants participated in the selection process. According to the applicants 499 candidates were called for interview in spite of 125 vacancies and a merit list was published without the names of the applicants. Being aggrieved, they made representations to the authorities by pointing out certain irregularities in the selection process, but no answers were given to their representations. Hence, they approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing Writ Petition No.990 (W) of 2009, which was affirmed on 16.01.2009 and a direction was given by the Hon'ble High Court to file affidavits. Subsequently, it was transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as T.A.No.350/4/2014.
2. At hearing, Learned Counsel for the applicants has submitted the following:-
(i) That the company awarded 50% marks in the written test and kept 50% marks for their own assessment (20% marks for interview, 15% marks for performance rating and 15% marks for experience), which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as higher marks in interview raises the chances of Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document BANDYOPADHYAY Location:
Date: 2025.02.24 14:50:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 manipulation and fixing of such higher percentage of marks in interview was solely for selecting their own favoured candidates.
In support of such submission, Learned Counsel for the applicants has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Council for Agricultural Research Vs. D. Sundara Raju), wherein it was held that the act of keeping higher marks for interview is excessive, unjustified and arbitrary. He has further referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashok Alias Somanna Gowda and Another Vs. State of Karnataka by its Chief Secretary and Others [1992(1) SCC-28] and submitted that allotting higher marks for interview is bad in law;
(ii) According to the Learned Counsel for the applicants, two persons, namely, Sourav Dey and Pranab Pratap Singh (who appeared at Srl.
No.67 and 104 of the final select list) were selected to the posts of Junior Officers, who neither participated in the written test nor their names featured in the list of 499 candidates, who were called for interview, therefore, the respondents had adopted pick and choose policy in selecting the candidates.
(iii) That there was large scale of tampering of the OMR Sheets by using whitener, blade and eraser and as per instructions contained in the OMR sheet, any kind of tampering of OMR sheet would be libale to be cancelled;
(iv) That, OMR sheets were to be checked up by computerized method as per the relevant instructions, whereas those OMR sheets Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document BANDYOPADHYAY Location:
Date: 2025.02.24 14:50:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 were checked up manually in violation of the guidelines for such selection process.
(v) That, the applicants were working in the company for the last 15-20 years in the highest grade of non-executive category but the company surprisingly gave a total go bye to the promotional policy on the basis of seniority, which was prevalent in Durgapur Steel Plant (now Steel Authority of India Limited). By applying such policy, the company allowed all the juniors to supersede the applicants herein, in the selection process of 2008;
(vi) It is stated that in the same selection process, Durgapur Steel Plant (now Steel Authority of India Limited) allotted two cut off marks for technical and non-technical posts i.e. 94 and 77 respectively, which is contrary to the settled proposition of law;
(vii) There is a restriction of 25% vacancies for non-technical stream.
Accordingly there were 260 candidates in non-technical stream in Durgapur Steel Plant and the vacancies logically should be 26 only, but 122 candidates have been called for interview against 31 vacancies which is 47% and for technical stream out of 990 only 377 have been called for interview which is 38% only. Therefore, the candidates were selected in an unfair manner by way of pick and choose policy. Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document BANDYOPADHYAY Location:
Date: 2025.02.24 14:50:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 Learned Counsel for the applicants, therefore, prayed for a direction to declare the amendments of the 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 of the Circular dated 04.04.2008 as ultra vires, cancellation of the selection process of Junior Officers held in 2008 as per the amended Circular and a direction upon the respondents to accommodate the applicants against the posts of Junior Officer in Steel Authority of India Limited with all arrear benefits of the said post.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondents has refuted the claim of the applicant in the following manner:-
(i) Learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the policy dated 04.04.2008 itself provided that the same was liable to be amended and accordingly it was amended vide Circular dated 14.05.2008. The process of selection for promotion to executive cadre was initiated only by publication of circular dated 19th July, 2008 and such process of selection was conducted under the amended policy.
The applicants took part in the said selection being well aware of the fact that the policy had been amended and having participated in the selection process, they cannot now turn around and challenge the selection after being unsuccessful in the same. In support of such submission, Learned Counsel for the respondents has referred to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhananjay Malik and Others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others [(2008)4 Supreme Court Cases 171 and Madras Institute of Development Studies and Another Vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan and Others [(2016)1 Supreme Court Cases 454. Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document BANDYOPADHYAY Location:
Date: 2025.02.24 14:50:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 (ii ) Learned Counsel for the respondents denied any act of overwriting in answer scripts or any other illegality/irregularity as submitted by the Learned Counsel for the applicants.
(iii) Learned Counsel for the respondents has averred that selection was conducted by an external agency in an organized manner and there was no defect in placing the technical and non-technical candidates during selection process.
(iv) So far as selection of two candidates, namely, Sourav Dey and Pranab Pratap Singh is concerned, the Respondents' Counsel has submitted that they were not promoted to the Executive cadre in the said promotion process of 2008. The Selection file had been produced before this Tribunal as per direction of this Tribunal dated 03.02.2016 and it was apprised that they were promoted in 2009, therefore, the allegation of the applicants that the aforesaid two candidates were selected in a pick and choose manner, is baseless;
(v) Learned Counsel for the respondents has denied the allegation of tampering of OMR sheet too and submitted out of 81 added private respondents only 4 selected private respondents were served notice despite direction of the Hon'ble Tribunal. He has further submitted that out of these 4 private respondents, two have already retired.
On the basis of the aforesaid points, Learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that no irregularity or illegality was committed by the respondents in respect of the selection of Junior Officers in 2008, therefore, the T.A. is liable to be dismissed.
Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document BANDYOPADHYAY Location:
Date: 2025.02.24 14:50:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10
4. We have considered the rival contentions of both sides and perused the record.
5. The Respondents' Counsel has referred to various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned above and contended that it is a settled principle of law that an unsuccessful candidate cannot challenge a selection process after participating in the same, therefore, the T.A. is not maintainable as per law. The applicants' Counsel has taken the plea that an unsuccessful candidate is not estopped from challenging a selection process where the Government has committed glaring irregularities. In this respect, Learned Counsel for the applicants has referred to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir [1995 SCC (3) 486 ; Rajkumar & Others etc. Vs. Shakti Raj & Others etc. [AIR 1997 SC 2110] and Bholanath Chakraborty vs. The State of West Bengal & Others [1999(1)CWN 583].
(Suchitto Kumar Das) (Urmita Datta (Sen)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
Sb
Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
SOMA DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6794, OID.2.5.4.65=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, Phone=
248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, PostalCode=700114, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY Reason: I am the author of this document BANDYOPADHYAY Location:
Date: 2025.02.24 14:50:35+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0