Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Hansraj Meena vs Eastern Railway on 31 January, 2022
. 4 ~_ i OA/ 350/0035/2022 ent | +n 4 espe i mang | CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL j 4 Uh 30.0 Aisy &f gy KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA © jee ba SA 0.A /350/0035/2022 - Date of Order: 31.01.2022 _ Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member Hon'ble Dr. (Ms.) Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member / In the matter of : Shri Hansraj Meena (S.T.), son of Shri Ram -- Khilari Meena, residing at 82 Mool Abadi, J Village-Gengurda, Post Office-Samerda, P.S. & Dist-Karauli, State-Rajasthan, Pin-322255. a Applicant VS. 1. The Union of India, service through the "General Manager, Eastern Railway, 17 N.S. Road, Fairly Place, Kolkata-700001.. ' 2. The Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell, Eastern Railway, 56 CR. Avenue, RITES Building, 1" Floor, Kolkata-700012. 3, The Assistant Personal Officer, Railway Recruitment Cell, Eastern Railway, 56 CR. Avenue, RITEs Building, 1% Floor, Kolkata- 700012. | .... Respondents For The Applicant: Mr..R. Halder, Counsel 'Mr. N. K. Singh, Counsel For The Respondent(s): Mr. A. K. Dasgupta, Counsel 2° OA/ 350/0035/2022 ORDER(RALD Per: Dr. Ms. Nandita Chatterjee, Member (A):
Being aggrieved at not having been appointed by respondent authorities in response to the Employment Notice No. 0112 issued on 16.08.2012, the applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals
- Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:-.
"a) A direction, order or command upon the
-. Respondents to give immediate appointment to.
such post of Gr 'D' in Eastern Railway by immediate - empaneling the name of the petitioner for the post of Gr 'D' as per Employment Notice. No. 0112 dated 16.08.2012 as published by the Railway Recruitment Cell, Eastern Railway.
(b) A direction, order or command be issued to give immediate appointment to the petitioner in the post.of Gr. 'D' in Eastern Railway follawing the ratio of the judgement of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court dated 24" April, 2020 as passed in WPCT No. 49 of | 2017 (Bipul Kumar Biswas & Ors, vs. UO! & Ors.)
(c) To dispose of the representation in the light of the judgement dated 24" April, 2020 as. passed in ve ; ; _WPCT No. 49 of 2017 (Bipul Kumar Biswas & Ors. vs, UOI & Ors.) Bo iy
(d) Any other direction/directions, if required, even by moulding the reliefs specifically prayed for, as . Your Lordships may deem fit and proper." a,
2. Heard Id..Counsel for both sides. Examined documents on record, as well as the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Petition {s) for, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11748/2020 (Arising out of impugned final judgement and.order . | dated 24.04.2020 in: WPCT No. 49/2017 of the Hon'ble High court at Calcutta in, . (Union of India & Ors versus Bipul Kumar Biswas & Ors), as furnished by Id.
Counsel for the respondents during hearing.
E 3 , OA/ 350/0035/2022 "Ld. Counsel for the applicant would submit that the law with regard. to normalization (in awarding marks of candidates appearing on various venues/sessions with different sets of question papers) has been laid down by the 'Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in WPCT 49/2017 (Bipul Kumar Biswas and Others -
VS Union of India and Others) and other batch cases, particularly, with reference ' to the underlined conditions 'that such normalisation can be resorted to when there was an established difference in the level of difficulty in question papers in _ different shifts/ sessions.
The applicant would, therefore, pray that the respondents be directed to _ dispose of his representation at Annexure A-5 to the O.A, in which he has prayed for appointment in the light of judgement in WPCT 49/2017 (supra), in a time bound manner. |
4. . | Ld. Counsel for the respondents would, "per contra, argue that' the judgement and orders of the Hon'ble High Court in Calcutta in in WPCT 49/2017 (Supra), was challenged by the Union of India in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, pon hearing, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed as follows:
"Issue notice.
- The respondent appearing on caveat is allowed four weeks' time to file counter affidavit.
' In the meantime, the impugned direction dated 24.04.2020 issued by the . learned Division Bench shall not be given effect to."
5. Both Ld. Counsel would agree that this Original Application can be disposed of by directing the competent respondent authority to dispose of the pending representation in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's orders 'whenever the matter is decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 4 . oo ' OA/ 350/0035/2022
6. Accordingly, we would dispose of this: Original Application by directing the respondent authority-to dispose of the representation as pending at their.end and subject to receipt thereof, within a period of 12 weeks from the date as and when this matter is decided upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7. - The instant O.A stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.
: . Rise , (Nandita Chatterjee) - . . (Bidisha Banerjee) © Member (A) , Member (J)