Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pappu Prasad vs Union Of India & Others on 5 June, 2013
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
Bench: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
33 05.6.2013. W. P.C.T. 182 of 2013
BD
Pappu Prasad
Vs
Union of India & Others
Mr. Tapobrata Chakraborty,
Mr. Arpa Chakraborty.
... For Petitioner
Mr. Swapan Banerjee.
... For Respondent
This writ petition has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 19th March, 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. 490 of 2012.
The petitioner herein submitted application in response to the employment notice no. 0106 for filling up the vacant Group 'D' posts. The petitioner was allowed to appear in the written test and was declared successful. Subsequently, the petitioner was asked to appear in the Physical Endurance Test/P.E.T Test. The petitioner also appeared in the PET test and was declared successful. However, the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the list of successful candidates. The petitioner was informed by the respondent authorities that his candidature for recruitment to Group 'D' posts against employment notice no. 0106 has been cancelled due to mismatch of hand writing/signature with the application form.
Learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that no complaint was ever lodged by any one against the petitioner at the time of conducting the written test and the petitioner was not also granted any opportunity to cross examine the handwriting expert who allegedly found mismatch of handwriting/signature of the petitioner with the application form.
Learned advocate representing the petitioner further submits that the respondent authorities while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner did not observe the principles of natural justice since no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before taking the decision regarding cancellation of the candidature of the said petitioner.
This Court on the earlier occasion while deciding the similar matter specifically held that the candidate concerned should be given an opportunity of hearing and also opportunity of cross examining the handwriting expert before imposition of the penalty.
The respondent authorities undisputedly cancelled the candidature of the petitioner without observing the principles of natural justice specially by not granting an opportunity of hearing and also refusing to grant opportunity of cross examining the hand writing experts who allegedly found mismatch of the hand writing/signature of the petitioner with the application form.
The learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that in conducting the process of selection, respondent authorities cannot take any arbitrary decision regarding rejection of candidature without granting opportunity of hearing to the affected party. In the present case, the respondent authorities have undisputedly violated the principles of natural justice and procedural justice by not granting opportunity of hearing to the affected party, namely the petitioner herein before cancellation of the candidature.
The respondent authorities should have granted an opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the concerned handwriting expert before taking the decision regarding the cancellation of the candidature of the said petitioner on the ground of mismatch of handwriting/signature with the application form.
For the aforementioned reasons, we are unable to uphold the decision of the respondent authorities regarding cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner and refuse to affirm the decision of the learned Tribunal, as mentioned in the judgement 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. 490 of 2012 and also quash the decision of the respondent authorities regarding cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner 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 petitioner afresh without any further delay after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the concerned candidate, namely the petitioner herein and also granting an opportunity of cross examining the handwriting expert who found mismatch of handwriting/signature of the said petitioner with the application form.
Needless to mention that the respondent authorities will also communicate the decision to the petitioner herein immediately after de novo consideration of the matter in terms of this order.
With the above observations and directions, we dispose of this writ petition without awarding any costs.
(Pranab Kumar
Chattopadhyay, J.)
(Murari Prasad Shrivastava,
J)
1.
10.02.2010.
W.P. No.