Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Krishna Murari Pandey And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 18 January, 2012
Author: Subhro Kamal Mukherjee
Bench: Subhro Kamal Mukherjee
S/L. 4 and 5.
January 18, 2012.
HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
W. P. C. T. No. 337 of 2011
With
W. P. C. T. No. 338 of 2011
Krishna Murari Pandey and Others
....Petitioners.
Versus
Union of India and Others
...Respondents.
Mr. Lakshmi Kumar Gupta, Mr. Arjun Ray Mukherjee, Mr. Joydeep Acharya, Mr. Chayan Gupta ...for the petitioners.
Mr. Sanajit Kumar Ghosh ...for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in both the applications.
Mr. Monoj Tandon, Mr. Kishore Dutta, Mr. Joydip Roy, Mr. Bikas Goswami ...for the respondent nos. 3 to 21 in W. P. C. T. No. 337 of 2011 and respondent no. 3 and 4 in W. P. C. T. No. 338 of 2011.
When the W. P. C. T. No. 337 of 2011 is taken up for hearing, it is suggested that W. P. C. T. No. 338 of 2011 is to be taken up for analogous hearing as similar questions of law and facts are involved in these two matters.
Therefore, by consent of the respective parties and at their suggestion, we take up both the applications together for consideration.
There was a selection for the post of Apprentice Mechanics (Inter-stage), Mechanical Cadre in Chittaranjan Locomotive Works.
The writ petitioners participated in such selection process, but they were not selected.
A panel was prepared on February 12, 2008. The selected persons were permitted to join in their promotion posts.
One Shridip Misra filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 2005'), inter alia, asking for the marks obtained by the candidates in the said selection process. It was disclosed to the said applicant on April 4, 2010.
The Original Application No. 774 of 2010 was filed on March 23, 2010 challenging the result of the selection process.
The Original Application No. 1257 of 2009 was filed on September 8, 2009 on the allegation that although the selection was made on February 12, 2008, only sometime in August, 2009 the petitioners came to learn that they were unjustly eliminated.
Admittedly, in both the original applications, there was neither any averment explaining the delay nor any application for condonation of delay was filed in connection with the said original applications.
Under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1985), the period of limitation for challenging the final order is one year. However, power was reserved with the tribunal for condonation of delay in filing the application on justifiable ground.
Mr. Lakshmi Kumar Gupta, learned senior advocate appearing in support of these applications, submits that the petitioners were not aggrieved on February 12, 2008 when the panel was prepared, as they were nurturing in the cradle of an idea that they were not selected as they did not perform well in the selection. Only when they came to learn, on the basis of materials disclosed under the said Act of 2005, that persons, who had obtained lesser marks, were selected, they felt aggrieved and, therefore, they approached the tribunal for redressal of their grievances.
It is pertinent to note that subsequently similar selection process was initiated for selection in the said post. On September 1, 2008, these petitioners participated in such subsequent selection process. This fact was not disclosed in the said original application.
The Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chand Sharma versus Udham Singh Kamal and others reported in (1999)8 Supreme Court Cases 304 held that the explanation for delay sought to be given before the Supreme Court could not be entertained by the Supreme Court as no foundation thereof was laid before the tribunal.
It was open to the petitioners to make proper applications under Section 21(3) of the said Act of 1985 for condonation of delay. Admittedly, no prayer for condonation of delay was made. The petitioners cannot be permitted to take up such contention at this late stage.
We, therefore, cannot say that the tribunal committed any error of jurisdiction in holding that the applications were barred by limitation.
Both the applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are, therefore, rejected.
We make no order as to costs.
(Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.) (Nishita Mhatre, J.)