Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Chandi Das Khan vs S E Railway on 3 December, 2019
;■ ffji fi i BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL \ i5 \ CALCUTTA BENCH | ? O. A. NO. /g2_3 OF 2016
-
A)-4- z.d\J-
t
l
i In the matter of:
An application under Section 19 of 5 s--
l the Administrative Tribunal Act, :
) I. f 1985;
i.
f;
j 3:it-
And j.
i;
t i In the matter of:
j •i 1. Chandi Das Khan, son of i i ; : • s Sambhunath Khan, aged about * r;
j ?< 34 years, residing at Village-
i 1r*.
% Kashpukur, P.O. Torkona, P.S. !f f!ie* Indas, District- Bankura, Pin-
!•!
{
t 713 423, West Bengal.
1
!-i
i
2. Chitanjit Hati, son of Samir Hati, ii; I-
■ti; :■
:{;! aged about 23 years, residing at
?
Village-Kashpukur, P.O.
1
r f Torkona, P.S. Indas, District-
M i
;
4
i:
i
Bankura, Pin- 713 423, West r V U ■ ■ H.- Bengal.
•Ji ;
f! '
: i
3. Sk. Abdur Rahim,* son of Sk.
iu
$ !
ii-!. Abdur Rahaman, aged about 32
f: !! years, residing at Village and
■
f.
; :
5 ■
P.O. Biur, P. S. Patrasayer,
i
A '
i District-Bankura, Pin- 722 206, •
■
£
tr !
| West Bengal.
| ;
£
t ;
h:: i
IwJ
m*
SSgl^5s^p5^g3SS3Bgs^=£===!==?- ^ -------------■
--
2 ,,
If:
!■
4. Nasiruddin Molla, son of Somsur Molla, aged about 44 years, residing at Village- Manderpur, P.O. Kaunta, P.S. Madhabdihi, District-Burdwan, Pin- 713 423, < West Bengal. i
5. Atanu Hazra, son of Monoranjan •:
Hazra, aged about 26 years, residing at Village and P.O. Uchalan Bharale Para, P.S. <:■ t Madhabdihi, District-Burdwan, r.:
i:
l Pin- 713 427, West Bengal.
6. Chandan Mohanta, son of Rai f Charan Mohanta, aged about 30 i .
years, residing at Village-Narrah, P.O. Akui, P.S. Indas, District- / Bankura, Pin-722 201, West Bengal.
7. Safikul Mallik, son of Nur Mahammad Mallik, aged about 25 years, residing at Village- V Narrah, P.O. Akui, P.S. Indas, & District- Bankura, Pin-722 201, West Bengal. ;■
8. Sanjib Nandi, son of Shiba I> Prasad Nandi, aged about 47 f?' years, residing at Village- Manderpur, P.O. Kaunta, P.S. l ' r f-
3 V ■f.
y it?
t-
Madhabdihi, District-Burdwan, i • if ?! Pin- 713 423, West Bengal. ;!■
9. Saritanu Kundu, son of Trilochan !■ [' Kundu, aged about 40 years, residing at Village- Manderpur, i..
P.O. Kaunta, P.S. Madhabdihi, District-Burdwan, Pin- 713 423, r :
.West Bengal.
10. Ajfar Hossain Khan, son of Jaynal Abed Khan, aged about 45 years, residing at Village s' f Manderpur, P.O. Kaunta, P.S. Madhabdihi, District-Burdwan, ♦ Pin- 713 423, West Bengal.
11. Biswajit Majhi, son of Ajit Majhi, agaed about 31 years, residing at Village and P.O. Torkona, P.S. Khandaghosh, District-Burdwan, Pin- 713 423, West Bengal.
12. Moni Sankar Das, son of Shasadhar Das, aged about 35 years, residing at Village- Bulchandrapur, P.O. Painta, P.S. Madhabdihi, District- Burdwan, Pin- 713 427, West Bengal.
'i
13. Soumya Ray, son of Ganesh Chandra Ray, aged about 27 years, residing at Village and ;.i rr'iA:
f 4
& P.O. Uchalan, P. S. Madhabdihi, District- Burdwan, Pin-713 427, ;;. West Bengal.
14. Soumen Hazra, son of s k Chittaranjan ; Hazra, aged about f-
46 years, residing at Village and P.O. Uchalan; P. S. Madhabdihi, f.
r s District- Burdwan, Pin-713 427, West Bengal.
15. Sk. Selim Ali, son of Sk. Haider Ali, aged about 27 years, residing at Village and P.O. Uchalan, P. S. Madhabdihi, District- Burdwan, i Pin-713 427, West Bengal. 6 ■ t.
16. Binay Kuiidu, son of Dhrubananda Kundu, aged about 36 years, residing at Village- Manderpur, P.O. Kaunta, P.S. Madhabdihi, District- l;;
l Burdwan, Pin- 713 423, West &•- Bengal.
H/
17. Barnali Kundu Dey, daughter of Samir Kundu, aged about 33 F years, residing at Village- Sadhanpur, P.O. Sahaspur, P.S. ft Khandaghosh, District-
P Burdwan, Pin-722 205, West fc.
c Bengal.
l iMaiWwWMMWn.
S:
i 5 {1;
-.'•x ?-• •
18. Khaja Arif Islam, son of Khaja i.
'S. 5 Mokbul Islam, aged about 33 K:
h-
r
years, residing at 195,
h-.
Bahirsarbamangla Para (West), ■■
P.O. 8b District- Burdwan, Pin-
713 101, West Bengal.
:<
19. Chowdhury Saddam Hossain, son of Chowdhury Liakat V. Hossain, aged about 23 years, residing at Village & P.O. Guir, k P.S. Khandaghosh, District- Burdwan, Pin- 713 423, West t Bengal.
20. Debashis Hati, son of Sushil Kumar Hati, aged about 26 years, residing at Village- Kashpukur, P.O. Tarkona, P.S. Indas, District- Bankura, Pin-713 423, West Bengal.
21. Partha Hati, son of Late Sukumar Hati, aaged about 26 t ■ • years, residing at Village 8b P.O. v. Naisafai > P.S. Arambagh > i h District-Hooghly, Pin-712 602, West Bengal.
%
22. Arun Das, son of Ranjit Kumar Das, aged about 39 years > residing at Village- Muidhara, P.O. Uchalan, P.S.Madhabdihi, i;.-
6 i 'i. • District- Burdwan, Pin-713 427, I WestBengal. If:
j.
t All are unemployed youth.
..Applicants
'!
Versus •i;
1. Union of India through the
General Manager, South Eastern \ Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata- ■. * 700 043. r.
2. The General Manager, South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata- 700 043.
>
3. The Chief Personnel Officer > South Eastern Railway, Garden ir.
Reach, Kolkata-700 043.
4. The Divisional Railway Manager (P), South Eastern Railway, I !'■ -• Andra Division, District-Purulia, Pin-723 121.
5. The Chief Engineer [v (Construction), South Eastern y ■ l Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata- 700 043. II & ?.
6. The Deputy Chief Engineer .* ■ r (Construction) (LA for k Bowaichandi Arambag New t:
I--
Railway Line Project), South 1: .
^ ;
■h ■
. 'y
w
7 !2 m
to.
1 H
%
%
U
P!
if
1
Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, 1f i Kolkata- 700 043.
7. The Chairman, Railway f • !; ' Recruitment Cell, South Eastern r Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata- -. 700 043.
r
..Respondents l-
t
rr
r
F.
F
%
t.i
i.
i.
i
k.f-
l
i
t
I
r
i
I y.
*
■
?:
if..
i
1 !
$
SI*
I-
Sf.
Si
tS'
II
i?-
l.
t
&
l
%
&
£
r-;.
I
•S'
1-
r
/
1 O.A. No.350/01823/2016.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH KOLKATA M.A.350/00213/2017 O.A. No.350/01823/2016.
Date of order: This the 3rd Day of December, 2019.
HorVble Mrs.Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member Hon'ble Dr (Ms) Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member Chandi Das Khan & Others .Applicants
-Versus-
Union of India & Ors.
Respondents Advocate for the Applicants: Mr A. Benerjee & MrS.K.Datta. Advocate for the Respondents: Ms S. Choudhury ORDERfORALl MS BlDfSHA BANERJEE.MEMBERfJl The applicants 22 in number have preferred this O.A to seek the following reliefs.
"(a) An order to cancel and/or withdraw and/or rescind of the order dated 17th March, 2016 passed by the Learned Tribuhnal.
(bj To direct the respondents to issue letter of appointment to the applicants forthwith without any further delay.
(c) An order holding that the denial of consideration of the applicants for employment under the land loser's scheme is totally arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal.
Id) An order directing the respondents to grant employment to the applicants In terms of the scheme and In the manner other similarly placed land losers have been granted employment vide Annexure A-9 to this application.
(e) An order directing the respondents to produce/cause production of all relevant records.
w Any other order or further order/orders as to this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.
r/
m 'J•7
2 O.A. No.350/01823/20] 6.
W/
7-
fg/ An order /eave may be granted Rule 4(5) (a) of the CATfProcedure/ Ru/es 1987 to move this application jointly."
2. An M.A bearing No.213/2017 arising out of this O.A has been filed by the applicants praying for liberty to jointly pursue this application under Rule 4(5) (a) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987. On being satisfied that the applicants share common interest and are pursuing a common cause of e LTIe-J 1 s * action, they are permitted to jointly pursue this O.A. subject to payment of individual court fees. The M.A is disposed of accordingly.
3. The applicants claim that' pursuant to a notification dated 27th August, 2010 for acquiring land for Bowaichandi - Arambag New Railway Line Project, their lands were acquired by the Railway Administration and a meager compensation was awarded to them. Many land owners including the family of the applicants of the present original application have lost their land for construction of the Railway Project. In terms of the Railway Board's Circular, RBE 99 of 2010 dated 16fH July, 2010, the applicants were entitled to employment in addition to compensation, but employment was not provided to them. Aggrieved as such, they approached this Tribunal by filing O.A.No. 711 of 2015 which was disposed of by an order dated 17.06.2015 to screen them for employment. Since the order was not complied with, the applicants served a notice for contempt, whereafter their claim was turned down by a communication dated 17.03.2016. Being aggrieved thereby the applicants filed a contempt application which was dismissed as a Speaking Order issued to them, granting liberty to file proceeding as per law before appropriate forum. A Writ Petition was filed before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta against the order but the same was dismissed and, as such, the applicants 3 O.A. No.350/01823/2016. beg to approach this Hon'ble Tribunal by filing the instant application for the ends of justice.
4. The respondents while admitting their claim have averred as under:
In order to execute Bowaichandi Arambag Special New B.G.Line Project under the provisions of Railway (Amendment) Act, 2008, Railway administration acquired land from the owners. But as per Railway Board's Circular No.E(NG)ll/201 l/RC-5/1 dated 28.09.2010, the applicants of instant OA have not been extended employment assistance under Land Loser Scheme. The Bowaichandi -Arambag Special New B.G.Railway Line project was sanctioned long back. In order to execute the project, land was acquired by the Railway Administration and Compensation in enhanced market rate was paid to the land Joosers, the present applicants at the material time. However, progress of land acquisition work involved with project was stalled at that stage as State Government of West Bengal refused to carry out land acquisition work. Consequently, no further advancement of the project could be achieved. As a result, returns from the project are not justified.
The respondents have emphatically admitted that although the project was stalled "the General Manager. South Eastern Railway accorded approval for extending employment assistance to the 28 Land Loser candidates under Land Loser Scheme in Group - 'D1 category at the material time. Those land losers have been appointed and posted other than Bowaichandi Arambag Project area, since, the project is fully stopped due to land acquisition problem on the part of State Government of West Bengal and other administrative constraints." 4 O.A. No.350/01823/2016.
They have further averred that "in compliance with the CAT, Kolkata Bench order dated 17.06.2015 in O.A.No.350/00711/2015, the Railway respondents, i.e. the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Cell, South Eastern Railway on behalf of respondent No.4, had issued a Speaking Order dated 17.03.2016 to. the applicants. The allegations of the petitioners that the Order was not complied are fully baseless and hence 'I ws i denied. The Tribunal also agreed and accordingly they disposed of the Contempt Petition(Civil) No.350/0093/2016 arising out of O.A.350/00711/2015 vide order dated 31.05.2016. The Bowaichandi - Arambag Special New B.G.Railway Line Project was sanctioned by the Central Government as a Special Railway Project in the year 2010-2011 under Railway (Amendment) Act, 2008, vide Gazette Notification S.O.No.1009(E) dated 04.05.2010. 80% of actual market value of acquired land were paid to the applicants whose lands were acquired by the Railway. The applicants accepted the said amount without any protest at the material time. It is evident that the petitioners were satisfied in accepting the amount towards compensation."
5. The applicants in support of their claim as land loser and that they have a right to seek employment as such, have placed the following :
(i) The Railway (Amendment) Act 2008 whereby Clause 37 A special railway project have been inserted and the manner in which land acquisition its notification and award of compensation is to be executed have been provided by inserting Chapter IV A to the existing Railways Act 1989;5 O.A. No.350/01823/2016.
The Land Loser Certificates issued to the applicants as land
(ii) looser in accordance with RBE.99 (supra) one of such certificate is extracted hereunder for clarity :
, ^SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY mi ZcS.:p 0'::':;' -.r •m k..; turt: ..a m Hy.L'r.ic! Fur New Saihray i,ir.e pruji.-c!.
SuiMrabazar Riv. station. Soha::ti;azar.
M Disu.: Burdwan 71342^.
LAND ACQUISITION UNDER RAILWAYS (AMEDMENT) ACT, 2008 i mu:. LAND LOSER C E R T I F I C A T E * Date:vftl./fi[/aol3 Bowaichandi - Arambagh new B.G. railway line ^^Mication No. & Date u/s 20A(1) 1948 dt. 17.09.10, S.0:2299(E) publication of Gazette u/s 20A{1)' ' 25.10.10 & 29.01.11 ^^fe'fjcation No. & Date u/s 20E(1) 1270,5.0.1539 (E)dt. 06.07.2011 *^^'lnbtice u/s 20F('1) s 13.09.11 & 26.10.11 ||^ed that the plot(s) of land detailed below owned and possessed by 3ftr.
TiP .. ............... ..of village WMlfe'/A ........... ,p.s
--;................... .........., Oistrict...^^.,:. Has/have been acquired by the execution of Bowaichandi - Arambagh new B.G. railway line Special Railway Project under the Railways (Amendment) Act, 2008. Ot'^^tyalue of the land together with the 60% of the market value as additional amount has been duly fe;i$?ss|^ah'd determined as the compensation for the said land and has been paid to thee land owner as S&CryJyJfl/*.
pfS-MSr- mom of corf,Pensation Rs- 75, mb (Rupees,
-r->~ A(-rrvdr*Lj fad Hkymjr " ) only.
'J. (Rupees Srt'iy IhfibMnJt
/
____ ) only as the %
GramPanchayat:
'a Sheet no. 3
fe?>> R.5. plot Acquired area
Share of the Area acquired from the owner
ISvj '.NO:
k.
no. •
LR. plot no. of the plot
(Pecimail
owner (Decimal)
y:. 2<z>7S- 3f.2 4-xi. ■ 2'-5U'
* i /'/ r
■2~. . £6'6 30'Kf,
a®-
*-•*■*■« ' M £
av* - '
p ■■-jm
ssi
ii 1 ' m.
.m Wmmmm
jl
& . ^
6 O.A. No.350/01823/2016.
(iii) RBE 99 of 2010, the Board's Circular that lays down the following :
,lR.B.EMo.99f20}0 Subject: Appointment of land losers affected by land acquisition forra/7way projects.
{No.E(NG}///2010/PC-5/l, doted J6.7.2010) In supersession of aii previous instructions on the subject it has been decided that Railways may call and consider applications for employment to PB-I Pay Band of Rs.5220-20,200 with grade pay of Rs. Jt800/-only, from land losers on account of acquisition of land for the projects on the Railways (excluding those for Deposit works). Applications shall be invited, by Personnel Branch of Zonal Railways, from the land losers fulfilling the screening criteria as enumerated in para 2 below.
1. Screening Criteria:
(ij . The applicant shall be a person (sole owner of land or son/daughter/husband/wife of the sole owner) whose land or a portion thereof has been acquired for the project in. in case the land is owned by more than one person, the Competent Authority, as defined in the Railway (Amendment) Act 2008/Land Acquisition Officer, will decide who shall be considered as applicant. Only one job shall be offered to an applicant from the (and loser family.
(ii) It must be ensured that the displaced person has not received any land from the State Government in lieu of his/her land acquired/being acquired for the project.
2. Railway administration should request the concerned Competent Authority/Land Acquisition Officer to issue certificate/s to those persons whose land has been acquired to facilitate proper verification of the claims.
3. An appiicanf claiming appointment shall be required to submit the application with his/her signatures and photos duly certified by local MP,MLA or any Gazetted Officer. Candidates shall also submit affidavits fulfilling eligibility criteria stipulated in para, 2 above, duly certified by the Competent Authohty/Land Acquisition Officer. This shall be co-ordinated by respective Divisional Railway Managers.
4. The applicant should normally fulfill the eligibility and other conditions prescribed for the post against direct recruitment quota from open market. In special cases, General Manager of the Railway can relax these conditions, and in respect of educational qualifications, applicant with read/whfe only capability shall also be considered.
5. General Manager of the Rai/way in whose jurisdiction of the land acquisition is to be undertaken, shal/ be responsib/e for . ensuring a fair and transparent selection of candidates. 7 O.A. No.350/01823/2016.
6. Once the offer of appointment has been made, no further application claiming appointment on ground of acquisition of the same piece of (and shaf! be entertained.
7. These insfructfons normally will not be applicable in those cases where land acquisition process has been concluded by way of possession of land by Railway."
(iv) The Call Letters for screening issued to the applicants that speaks as under:
Sub: Screening of Land Losers affected by land acquisition for Special I • ' ||| Railway Project in Gr.'D5 Category.
; ' j§|; Ref: H) Dv. Cb.Enginccr(Conslruction)/SBK/GRC & CA/LA's Letter No.
r fe-.
^ S ER/CA/SRP/BOW-ARA/Appt./l 6 dated 04.02,2013.
■2pl (2) ChairmaiVRRC/GRCs Letter No. SER/P'HQ/RECTT/565/OA No.
if.' 350/00? 11 of 2015/204 dated 20,07.2015 in obedience to Judgement
pp Order dated 17,06.2015 passed by the Hon'ble GAT/CAL in OA No.
■ .fe • 350/00711 of2015.
'R-lt§i reference to the above cited letters, you are provisionally allowed to . fe-blfl&e Screening Test before Screening Committee to be held as detailed II' ' ' ffeS-
■■ pr'
kitm Venue:- Office of the Sr. Divl. Personnel Officer
m
rm
South Eastern Railway/Adra Post:Adra, Dist: Purulia f Dale:- j 28.10.2015 (VVednesdaji ■ / Time:' 110:00 firs.
(V) The decision in Moh/nder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 ! to contend that "when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supp/emenfed by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a cha/fenge, get va/fdafed by additional grounds later brought out."8 O.A. No.350/01823/2016.
(vi) They have also further relied on a judgment in State of Karnataka & Ors. vs. C. Lalitha reported in (2006) 2 SCO 747, wherein it was held that "all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly irrespective of the fact that only one person has approached the court."
6. The Id. counsel for the applicant would vociferously plead that if 28 ^ land losers could be accommodated against other projects as s emphatically admitted and declared by the respondents, there is no reason why the present applicants should be deprived, more so, as they have been directed already in terms of the earlier order in O.A. 711 of 2015 that "the respondents should do well to see that the case of the applicants are screened and considered as per the scheme and if found suitable legally then necessary benefits may be accorded, as otherwise. they may be informed of their unsuitability, within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of this order." Whereas, the impugned speaking order dated 17.03.2016 that says "However, progress of Land Acquisition work involved with Project has been stalled at this stage as State Govt of West Bengal has refused to carryout land acquisition work. Consequently, no further advancement of the Project can be achieved as on date. In view of that facts since project itself is not progressing, the employment against land loser can not be processed."
The applicants have argued that it is highly discriminatory and offends Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India as well as the mandatory direction of this Tribunal in O.A.711 of 2015. Ld. counsel would thus pray for a direction to consider the applicants for employment against other projects in relaxation of their age and educational qualification as RBE 99/2010 that was prevalent at the material time when their lands were acquired, guaranteed to them. 9 O.A. No.350/01823/2016.
7. The Ld. counsels were heard and materials on record were perused.
8. From the records we discern the following :
(i) That inarguably the applicants are the land loosers, whose lands have been acquired by the Railways to construct Bowaichandi Arambag Special New B.G.Project Railway line. They were dispossessed of their land for construction of Railway Project.
(fi) That their right to employment under Railways' land looser scheme flows from RBE 99 of 2010, extracted supra, that was prevalent at the material time. It was under a clear assurance of employment when they agreed to partake with their source of livelihood.
(Hi) That the respondents were already directed in the earlier O.A, to screen the applicants and consider them as per scheme, and if found suitable legally, to accord necessary benefits to them.
(iv) The respondents had never sought for any liberty to not follow the direction on the ground that the project for which land was acquired.
did not turn out viable. The respondents are therefore in clear contempt.
[v) Moreover, 28 identically circumstanced land land loosers who have been dispossessed due to proposed construction of Bowaichandi Arambag New BG Line and had supposedly lost their source of livelihood have been appointed/accommodated against other viable projects in compliance of the provision in RBE 99 of 2010. Therefore, the respondents are estopped by their conduct to deny employment to the present land losers on the ground that the project in question has been stalled.
(vi) Admittedly, the project got stalled, but even after the project got stalled, 28 land losers under the same project were accommodated. 10 O.A. No.350/01823/2016.
elsewhere and therefore respondents have arbitrarily meted out discrimination against the present applicants. They have attempted to create a class within a class, which is not permissible in law.
(vii) The applicants right to employment is fortified by the RBE 99 of 2010 as well as the decision in the previous OA to screen them and ft X consider them as per scheme and to accord them necessary benefits, as '/ PS also the fact that employment as has been provided to identically placed land losers. Hence they are entitled to identical relief.
(viii). We further discern that the Railways are conspicuous by their silence on the reason why the present applicants, when others have been accommodated already, that too, after the project in question was stalled^cannot be accommodated against similar other viable projects of the Railways. Railways are resorting to macrocompartmentalisation an the basis of a micro distinction or no distinction at all, which is grossly unfair.
(ix) The respondents have not rejected the claim after screening. They have simply refused to screen them as the project has been stalled.
9. In WPCT 74 of 2016 Hon'ble High Court while considering a matter relating to a land loser who was denied employment on the ground of age bar has directed as under:
"21. It is evident from the materials-on-record that even land losers, who were 47 years old, have been offered appointment. The respondent no. I was 46 years old on the date he approached the tribunal for the first time. When his claim was rejected by the first order dated July 15, 2014, age-bar was not cited as a ground therefor. What we find is that there were absence of certain documents/papers for which the claim of the respondent no. 1 could not be put up before the screening committee for screening. If indeed that was the reason for regretting his prayer, the petitioners ought to have asked the respondent no. 1 to supply the documents, which were not there in 11 O.A. No.350/01823/2016. the file, instead of closing his right to claim appointment We, therefore, propose to pass the following further directions to c/ose the breach:
(ij within a period of seven days from date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order, the Chief Personnel Officer shall intimate the respondent no. 1, which of fhe documents are required from his end for ensuring placement of his claim before fhe screening committee:
(ii) within a month of receipt of such intimation, the respondent no. 1 shall produce the necessary documents/papers before the Chief Personnel Officer and upon receipf of such documents/papers, the claim of the respondent no. I shall be placed before the screening committee for an appropriate decision;
(Hi) bearing in mind the fact that other (and losers have been offered appointment even upon attaining 47 years of age, we hope and trust that fhe screening committee shall not cite age-bar as a ground for not considering the claim of the respondent no. I and if a power of relaxation is indeed available to consider invocation of such power if fhe merits of fhe case so warrants; and
(iv) the entire exercise shall be completed as early as possible but not beyond June 30, 2019."
We direct the authorities to undertake identical exercise and pass appropriate order in regard to the present applicants within 4 months.
rv
r
(DR NANDITA CHATTERJEE) (BIDISHA BANERJEE)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
P9
'