Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Payal Midya vs The Union Of India & Ors on 10 August, 2020
Author: Samapti Chatterjee
Bench: Samapti Chatterjee
1
10.08.2020 Through Video Conference
Item no. 08
Dd/aloke WP 6242 (W) of 2020
with
CAN 4638 of 2020
Payal Midya
Vs.
The Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Asis Kumar Chowdhury
... ... For the Petitioner
Mr. Avishek Guha
... ...For the Respondents
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for a direction upon the respondent authorities particularly the respondent no. 5 to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner and not to fill up the post till the disposal of the writ application.
It is submitted by Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that pursuant to the notification published on 17th September, 2019, the main examination conducted on 22nd December, 2019 for the recruitment of Assistant, petitioner was selected. Accordingly, petitioner's name was appearing under Serial no. 29 in the short list subject to qualifying in the official language test (wherever applicable) and pre-recruitment medical examination. Unfortunately, in the pre-recruitment medical examination in the biometric test the petitioner's fingerprint was mismatched. Accordingly, under Clause-g of Serial no. 11 of biometric test capturing and verification, petitioner's candidature was cancelled. Assailing that cancellation, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Mr. Guha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent authorities, submits that as per serial no. 11 biometric data capturing and verification of the petitioner's fingerprint was mismatched and therefore, the petitioner's candidature was cancelled under Clause-g of the serial no. 11.
Mr. Chowdhury submits that assailing arbitrary cancellation of the petitioner's candidature, the petitioner made representation before the respondent authority on 22nd February, 2020 thereby 2 ventilating her grievance. Unfortunately, till date no steps have been taken to take a decision in respect of the petitioner's pending representation. Against that, Mr. Guha submits that as per Clause-g of Serial no. 11 biomatric data, petitioner ought to have raised objection on spot when mismatched was occurred, but the petitioner failed to do so. It is only on 22nd February, 2020, the petitioner made a representation which is nothing but an afterthought.
Considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the parties and after perusing the records, I direct the respondent no. 5, i.e. the Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India P & IR Department, Kolkata Metropolitan Division Office II, to consider and take a decision in accordance with law in respect of the petitioner's representation dated 22nd February, 2020 within two weeks from date after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, thereafter, communicate the reasoned decision to the petitioner within one week.
With this direction, this writ petition is disposed of. The connected application is also disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
(Samapti Chatterjee, J.)