Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Sanjit Ghose vs M/O Defence on 27 March, 2018
1 c a, 636.2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
/
ordeT: 11C 4 0I8
Date of
No. O.A. 350/636/2013
Hon'ble M. Manjula Das, Judicial Member
Present: rjee, Administrative Member
Hon'ble D. Nandita Chatte
Sanjit Ghose,
Sb. Sri Barendranath Ghose,
Aged 26 years,
Occupation - unemployed,
R/o. ViIlae - GurudaspUr,
P.O. - Lakshnnath,
Dist. - Balasore,
Orissa 756 032.
Applicant
Vs.
1. Th9UfliOfl0!:lndia
Throu4h 54
Minitry of 1'
?fence Production & SupplieS,
Depaitment
New Delhi.
The Chairman,
Oidnance Factory Board,
Kclkata - 700 001.
The General Manager,
Qrdnance Factory Dum Dum,
Jessore Road,
Kolkata - 700 020.
Respondents
Ms.N!. Saha, Counsel
For the Applicant
Ms. lvi. Bhattacharyya, Counsel
For the Respondents
2 0.3. 636.2013
/
ORDER
Per Dr. Nandita Chatterlee, Administrative Member:
Aggrieved by non-receipt of appointment letter to the post of Fitter (Gen/Mech)/Semi-Skilled in (OBCCatego) an application has been filed under Section 19 of the Adniinistrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking the folloWing relief:-
"(1) The immediate issuance of appointment letter to the petitioner without any fur! he? delay.
The urgent order of &atus quo may be issued on the new recruitment process initiated by the OF Dum Dum vide notice Adv. No. OFRB/2012/1 with online Registration of Application (opening date 1. 11.2012 and closing date 21.11.2012).
The respondents be directed to suitably compensate the petitioner for harassing the petitioner and causing irreparable loss to his career progression.
The respondents be diredted not to issue any further selection or appointment letter to any of the applicants under the new recruitment process unless the selection procesbf..ttIoetitioner is completed and appointment letter is issued.
Any otherrelief or relieves for which the petitioner is entitled to." II. Heard Ld. Counsel :for toth applicant and respondents and perused -
UI .
documents annexed to pleadings. WritteA arguments have been twvlsMeny /( / both Counsels on behalf of applicant and the respondents repectivély. A vigilance report dated 17.11.2015 has also been submitted by the respondents in response to directions of the Tribunal dated 20.7.2015 and the cobtents of the same has been examined.in the context of this application. Judgments relied upon by Ld. Counsel for applicant in support were also studied. Ill. The applicant's contentions, as canvassed by his Ld. Counsel, is that the applicant had been successful in the written examination /trade test held on 7.3.2011 in connection with direct recruitment in the semi-skilled grade and had been duly selected for the post of Fitter (Gen/Mech)/Semi-Skilled in (OBC category).
/3 ca. 636.2013 That, in spite: of a long wait, no appointment letter was issued to the applicant.
The applicant could ascertain, after accessing information through provisions of RTI Act, 2005, that appointments in respect of candiates against 27 number of reservd vacancies have been directed to be kept in, abeyance till further orders.
That, the applicant had been issued an appointment letter by the High Factory, Kharki, Pune on 12.3,2011. The applicant, however, opted for Ordnance Factory Dum Dum to remain close to his ailing parents and had foregone his appointment in Kharki Factory as he was under the strong convictibn and belief that he would be issued appointment letter for Ordinance factory, Dum Dum within a reasonable period of time.
That, the applicant,'-in addition to filing a'm.appeal under Ri Act against .,information provided to him or:3:8:201'2älsO preferred .3 represeçitation to the General Manager, Ordnance Factory, bum DUm on 14.2.2013 requesting for issue of appointment letter. The said communication has remairied:unanswered till date.
-
That an advertiement has been issued in Employment News between j0th September, 2010 vide which the respondent authorities have unleashed a new recruitment prOcess for selection of the said 27 Tradesmen without considering the case of thèapplicant along with 26 selected candidates.
Being aggrieved with the ndii-issue of appointment letter: the applicant has filed the instant applidation.
IV. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the respondents argued as follows:-
4th That, an advertisement was published in the Employment News' dated loth September, 2010 in connection with direct recruitment against 27 number to of reserved vaca cieá in the Semi-skilled grade for the trades of Examiner, Fitter
-_ -. --- - --
4 o.a. 636.2013
- / (Gen/Mech), Grinder, Machinist, Millwright, Painter in Ordnance Factory Dum Dum (OFDC). The applicant, in response to the same, had offered his candidature for the aforesaid recruitment and that a written ind practical examination was held in three phases in which the applicant was examined on 7.3.2011.
That, on the basis of total marks obtained in the written and practical examination and after, completion of the selection process, the candidates were sent Attestation Forms for verification of character and anteced&nts through police verification.
That, the entire process of recruitment against the aforesaid 27 vacancies was, however, halted as a result of an enquiry by the Director General of Ordnance Factories and Chairman to. probe certain alleged ftregularities pertaining to the ongoing process of recruitment against the aforesaid 27 vacancies and that the Ofdnarke -Facl6ty Board directed vide letter bearing No. 61/MlSC/COMPLAINT/AIDISC/0DC/11 dated 30.6.20011 to keep in abeyance the appointments in question (i;e. against 27 reserved vacancies3 "pending finalisation of the enquiry". Accordingly, all the appointments including cases where appointment letters had been issued have been kept in ab1'anceby Ordnance Factory DumDum.
In response, the Ordnance Factory Board through a fax bearing No. 01/MISC/COMPLAINT i A/DISC/OFDC/1 1 dated 29.9.2011 directed the Ordnance Factory Dum, Dum to maintain 'Status quo' against the 27 'number of vacancies. Thereafter, further diré1.ions were issued by the Ordnance Factory Board its letter bearing No. 02/AK/M/PER/OFB/1.,-dated 2.1.2012 to Ordnance Factory Dum Dum not to proceed further with any direct recruitment action in respect of lEs/NIEs against any sanction received at Ordnance Factory Dum Dum from Ordnance Factory Board so far.
S ca. 636.2013 That, subsequently, a Committee was constituted by the Ordnance Factory Board under the Chairmanship of Shri B.B. Sharma, Principal Director/Ordnance Factories Recruitment Board for direct recruitment of industrial employees for Ordnance Factory Dum Dum in its order No. 800/MP/Committee/A/l/896 dated 16.5.2012. In pursuance to the same, the OFB directed OFRB to process recruitment against 145 posts for OFDC consequent to which an advertisement against 145 number of vacancies in the semi-Skilled grade was pubIihed by the OFRB in the Employment News dated 20-26 w October, 2012. Examination was held in the months ofFebruary and April, 2013 under the supervision of OFRB.
That, the Ordnance Factory Board vide their letter dated 5.6.2013 intimated the following:-
a vigilance enquify was conducted by CVO, OFB into certain alleged irregularities in the recruitment:to 27 posts of Industrial Employees (Trades men) at OFDC. Consequently, CVO/OFB vide Thtter No. OFBA./\/IG/INV/190/2011 r.dtd. 13.8.2013 has informed that afler investigating and edmini,1Ig- the .issue'of irregularity alleged in the aforesaid OFDC recruitment base, /t1asThb'eên decided to take disciplinaiy action against certain officials of OFDC.
2. The competent authority has considered, the above development and has. come to the conclusion that the process of direct recruitment to 27 posts of Industrial Employees. (Trades men) at OFDC was vitiated. And, accordingly, the, competent Authority has decided to cancel the,.afore&9Jd recruitment examination and conduct the recruitment examinati6ñ afresh, by giving an opportunity to those who had applied against the original advertisement and were eligible as per extant of OFB instructions, even if they may have now become overaged."
That, in a similar matter filed by one Olpankar Porel in O.A. No. 152t of L&; 2013, the Tribunal had held as follows:-
"3. It is admitted position that the entire selection process for direct recruitment of 27 posts of Industrial Employees (Trades men) was cancelled, As such,the applicant has no legal riç3ht to pray for appointment in stion with reference to which the test as was held, now the post in que stand cancelled on the ground of illegality and irregularities to' hold it.
When the entire selection process has been cancelled, it is not a case of pick and chose to cancel the name of anyone of the candidates, as such, we are of the view that Article 14 has no applicability to grant relief in this O.A. j 6 o.a. 636.2013
6. By the subsequent decision of the Ordnance Board re-test has been allowed in respect of all those candidates including the present applicant, which is annexed at page R-6 of the reply, which reads such:-
"To The General Manager' Ordnance Factory, Dum Dum Sub: Clarifiqation on Direct Manpower Recruitment at OFDC.
Re f:- (0 OF DO letter No. 01/26/DR/lE/Estt. dated 4.10.2013.
(ii) OFB letter of even No. dated 16.5.2012.
In reference to the queries by the Factory, the following course of action is directed herewith:
To complete other necessary formalities like issuing attestation forms, appointment letters etc. in respect of 145 candidates selected by OFRB committee for appointment as semi-skilled Tradesman.
To proceed with the re-lest in respect of stalled DR of 27 vacancies.
In printipal approval to go ahead with recruitment process for lndusttial and Non-Industrial posts released by the Ordnance Factory Board to the Factory.
02. This issues with The approval of DGOF & Chairman.
(S. K. Singh) DIRECTORJIR For DGOF"
7. In the supplementary affidavit the applicant has referred: a letter dated 25.1.2014 issued by the respondents concerned being Annexure 5- I wherefrom it appears that the applicant was informed that in thejverrt4te- is found eligible as per existing OFB instructions/order he/would be allowed to sit in the test further irrespective of the fact, if he becomes over- aged in the meantime.
8, Having regard to the factual matrix of the case, we are of :the view that there is no scope of judicial review to grant the relief as sought for.
9. The CA., accordingly, stands dismissed." That, the applicant had moved a petition bearing WPCT No. 164.of 2014 before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta and the matter came up for hearing on 27.11.2014 when the Hoñ'ble Division Bench, hearing the Ld. Advocate for the parties, were pleased not to admit the Writ Petition ptthferred by the petitipner.
That, the respondents, in compliance to the orders of the Tribunal, have disclosed the irregularities detected by Vigilance Department in the recrLlitment process against 27 vacancies by a supplementary affidavit.
-= .- --.---.
7 o.a.6362d13
That, there were two distinct recruitment processes, the firsP against 27
-
/1 4th to 101h September, 2010 and the second for vacancies as advertised between 145 vacancies as advertised between 20" to 26" October, 2012 and that the applicant had applied against the recruitment process advertised in 2010 against 27 vacancies and not against the subsequent recruitment process of 145 vacancies.
That, as a result of the vigilance enquiry conducted by Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO), Ordnance Factory Board, into certain irregulañties in the recruitment to 27 posts of Industrial Employees (Tradesmen) and after investigating and examining the issue of irregularity, the process of direct recruitment against 27 vacancies of Industrial Employees was ound to be vitiated.
That a fresh examination against 27 vacancies of Tradesman for earlier recruitment process lhas been held ; as irected by the OFB, on 30.1 1.2014 but the results, however, are yet tokbe published. Opportunity had been given to all those who had applied in response to the original advertisement and who had been found eligible as per theextant OFB instructions.
141h Jan, 2015, the OrdthefletTy That as stated in their reply dated Board had revised its earlier recruitment policy No. 570/A/1(111) dated 15/20.10.1999 for Industrial Employees as per directions of Hori'ble Supreme Court and had issued a revised policy for recruitment of Industrial [Employees by No. 570/All(PT)/54/1V1294 dated 6.1.2011, which, inter alia, had mentioned the following:-
L Recruitment through Employment - Exchange and open advertisement to be issued inviting apf5lications.
iL Ex-Tradé apprentices need not apply and ex-trade 1apprentices of the factory need not apply and they will be considered along with others: However, age relaxation will be given for the period they have undergone training.
8 ca. 636.2013.
Educational qualification, for direct recruitment will be NCTVT in relevant Trade failing which lTl/Diploma/Certificale in the same trade.
Iv.
Written Test. will be of 100 marks and syllabus of NC TVT will be followed.
Syllabus of written test will be broadly as that of NCT/T exam V. syllabus.
Practical Test will be of 100 marks and syllabus of semi-skilled vi, grade of same trade will be followed.
All eligible cndidateS will be called for Written Test. Practical Test of 100 marks will be on the basis of merit of written test and candidates to be called in 1:3 ratio to the number of vacancy.
Final merit list to be prepared on the basis of total of Written and practical test marks, If marks are equal, ex-trade apprentices will be given preference. Between ex-trade apprentices, candidates senior in balh will be preferred.
Factoiy sfiould maintain batchwise, tradewise, ex-TA$ seniority xii.
strictly as per NCTVT Exam."
That, the ioilo'king irregularities were detected in the çroces5 of of recruitment against the 27 .vacaflcies as advertised in 2010. That 1 :jnstead •written test as per OFB circular No. calling all eligible candidates in prepared a.merit list of Ex.TA5 of 570lAIl(PT)/541(VOl.lV)19 4 dt 6.1.2011, OFOC trade for th vacant 27 posts,in violation OFDC.and called in 1:2 ratio in relevant of the extant order of calling all eligible candidates for written test. wthten test of phases on three days i.e. the vitiated recruitmentprOcesS was conducted in three ex-TA5 in 1:2 ratio in the relevant on 7.3.2011, 4.4.2011and 294.2011 calling to fill up the posts of examiners. Question trade and all diplomaiolder (16 Nos.) II .
I I / 7 9 o.a. 636.201 // papers dt. 7.3.2011 and 4.4.2011 were the same. According to rcords, that I question papers were sent to GM/OFDC on the pretext of his approval and it appeared that after several corrections, question papers have been approved by GM/OFDC unauthorisédly through an exclusive committee was nomirated to set question papers. Written examination was conducted for hail an hour. Irrespective of Trades, the questions set were common for all tests conducted on 7.3.2011 and 4.4.2011. While the OFB guidelines dated 6.1.2011 mandated that syllabus of written test will be broadly as that of NCTVT examinatio'n, requisite syllabus were not followed.. Question on syllabus of different trades to assess technical knowledge of the appearing candidates as required was not set. Investigation revealed that Practical Test was conducted for duration from 15 minutes to 4 hours whimsically without any laid down standard. Practical test syllabus was not followed for conducting practical test. Practical test result was verbally communicated to the Chairman of Selection Committee by officials nominated for conducting the practical test. Some.practical tests were conducted by the same person and some by group of persons nominated. Accordingly, all the applications received in response to the original advertisement were again scrutinized in terms of OFB guidelines, which had been revised guidelines of the Honble Supreme Court and the eligible candidates were called for appearing at the examination afresh which was held on 30.11.2014 and the results of which have not yet been declared. The respondents further averred that any recruitment process, which is fraught with irregularities due Ito.violation of rules and guidelines on the subject, cannot be said to have been, based on legality; and hence, appointment of the petitioner in pursuance of the said vitiated process of recruitment is illegal.
That, before conducting the fresh examination against 27 posts, the Ld. Advocate for the applidants in O.A. No. 636 and 1146 of 2013 prayed before the Hon'ble Tribunal to stay the said re-examination by filing MAs. The Tribunal, however, had fixed the date of hearing on 28.11.2014 and, being aggrieved, the / / 10 ca. 636.2013 I .1 Iinstant applicant had filed a WPCT before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta. / The Hon'ble High CoUrt at Calcutta was pleased not to admit the said Writ Petition and the Tribunal on 28.11.2014 had passed an order as folloWs:-
"2. Applicant isgiven liberty to appear at the examination which is said to be held on 30.11.2014 without any prejudice and contention."
The applicant had accordingly participated in the fresh examination held on 30,11.2014.
ISSUES V. The issue which requires to be resolved in the context of adjudication of the instant application is whether the applicant is entitled to appointment when the process of recruitment of 27 posts of Industrial Employment (Tradesman) relating to such appointment had been held to be vitiated.
'FINDINGS if
Vi. (i) The respondent authOrities had initiated two separate processes for
appointment to the posts of Fitter (GenlMech) Semi-skilled as follows:-
(a)Against 27 vacancies as advertised between 41h to 10" September, 2010.
61h
(b) Against 145 vacancies as advedised between 201h to 2 Octo2012.
1h The applicant had applied in response to the advertisement dated 4 to 10th September, .2010 as affirmed by the respondent authorities. It is noted here, however, that in his application, the applicant has stated as follows:-
"The advertisement piblished in the Employment News dated 4-10 September, 2010 amply testifies the fact that respondents have unleashed a new recruitment process fo? the selection of the same tradesmen without considering the case of the petitioner along with 26 selectedcandidates and without affdrding reasonable opportunityo accommodate 'them in the existing vacancy which is absolutely unjustified and untenable in law.
01h A Xerox copy of the advertisement dated 4-1 Sept. 2010 is enclosed as Annexure 4/8 as a forming part of this petition."
The above contention of the applicant is not correct as because the applicant, by his own averment, has stated that he had appeared in the 7 11 o.a. 636.2013 written examination/trade test held on 7.3.2011 (Annexure A-i to the O.A.) The contents of the said Annexure is reproduced below:-
"By Speed Post with AID FAX No. : (033) 25512136 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TELEX : 021-5117 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE TELEGRAM: OFDUM ORDNANCE FACTORYDUM DUM PHONE: 2559-3100/1043/5232 No. 013/R. Ce/I/27/20 10-2011/08 Date: 19.2.2011 From: THE GENERAL MANAGER TO SHRISANJ/TG?-IOSE o T. G URUDA SPUR, 'P.O. LA KSHANNA TH, VIA. JALES WAR, P.S. --RAIBANIA, 01ST: BALA SORE, PIN 756 032 SUB: Written Examination of Trade Test in Connect/on With appointment in the grade of Semi-ski/led- Ho/ding of.
REE: Advertisement published in Employment Pews 4th•10 Sep'10- Reserved Vacancies for 27 Nos.
You are: hereby intimated iht as a part of the process for recruitment of Ex-Trade IApfreritib'e's'in this facto,',' in the grade of Semi- Ski//ed of different 'trades'agaie'ist27.f(1'went seven) Nos. of sanction of OF Board for the year 2010-11, a written examination and trade test will be he/d in order to assess the suitability of the candidates, against the reserved categories. Acèordinly, "yOu may ap$ar in person on 7.3.2011 for appearing in the Written examination and Trade Test, to Offer yourself as a candidate .as per the schedule indicated be/ow:
'Date : 07.03.2011
Time : 09:00A.M.
Venue : OFDC Canteen Hall Upstairs.
02. You shobld bring following documents:
0 Call letter, Photo identity (viz. Voter's ID Card or Diving License etc.) . Original as well as one set of attested copies of Mark Sheets, educational & technical qualifiction. NCVT Certificate, Gste Certificate, Physically Handicapped Certificate (wherever applicable), date of birth proof, proof of experience etc Pen, pencil, scale & Geometry box etc. Two copies of passport size coloured photograph. No calculators or mobile phones will be al/owed during the examination.
03. Travelling Allowance will be given to SC/ST candidates whose address is beyond 30 kms. And documents in support of the expenditure are to be submitted for claiming the expense.
12 o.a. 636.2013 This letter does not, in any way, imply any guç rantee for appointment in This factoa'y even after passing the written/trade (est. You have to produce this letter to JCO/Main Gate for kry in the fact oty for the above purpose.
(J. C. Bhattadharyya) Asst. WorksiManager For General i4anager"
(c) The applicant, by his own admission, had been selected by High Explosives Factory at Pune and had been issued an offer of appointment dated 12.3.2011 (Annexure A-S to the O.A.) for temporary ap.'pointment to the post of Fitter Gen. Mech (Semi Skilled) subject to specified terms and conditions.
Clause 9 of the said temporary appointment letter states as follows:-
This offer of appointment will stand automatically canc?lled if you do not report for duties wit hin the.above-specified period of time.,"
Adffiittedly, the applicaniJiäd. not jthined this post as affirned by him in Para 4.5 of the Application. Hence, it is not the applicant's case that he had never been issued with an offer of appointment. Rather he volunteered to forego the offer in expectation of an appointment letter whi2,,kas"fl&er assured to him by the respondents.
examination The appliëant was issued an admit card to appear at an against OFC scheduled on 30.11.2014 with reference to his applicatioh to 101h September, 2010 annexed ias MA-3 to MA advertisement dated 4"
'C.., No. 385 of2014 and as directed by the Tribunal on g8.11.2014 the applicant ws given liberty to appear at the examination without any prejudice and contentions.
In her writtn notes of arguments the applicant's Counsel.' has referred to the decisiohs in the following matters:-
Ama? Nath Singh and Others v. UOI 1998 (3) UPLBEC 1885 I .
.
ii
1/
13 o.a. 636.2013
. ii
/1
KumariAnaitiica Mishré and Anr. v. UPSC 1989 SCALE (2)' 1095 / f/I A/ok Pal V. State of West Bengal Calcutta High Court 2012 161h August.
IV. JoginderPaf& others v. State of Punjab, Supreme Court 2614. The matters have been examined in the relevant context and thefollowing has transpired:
In the case of Aniar Nath Singh and others (supra), the Honbie Court stated as follows:-
"II. As noted in thG beginning, the Scrutiny Committee found the: following fdur faults with the pane/prepared by the Recruitment Committee:-;
Excess recrt4tment to the extent of 99 candidates; Violation of ektant rules/circulars information of the panel; I (ui) Certain SC candidates who had secured more marks fwere not brought on meriUlist, and
(iv) Procedure to llowing •b t the Recruitment Committee has not been elaborated in that at no poiØt of time the original application forms were scrutinized !coiflpa±Od and as such the posibility of impersonatioh by atfixing different photographs in the call letter at various stages.cannOt:be.tuled out.
The above iregularitie& /Shortcoming were rectifiable." The Apex Court field the shortcomings to be rectifiable; this)sto11fl context in which the instant application has been filed and hence reliance cannot be placed on the same.
In the case of 4loke Pal (supra) the process was kept in abeyance, purportedly due to an embargq imposed by the Honble Court which is not the cause of action in the instant matter In the case of Joinder Pal (supra) the ratio was based on segrgation of tainted and untainted candidates, which is not the issue to be adjudicted in the instant application.
In the case of Anamica Mishra (supra), the Court's decision was in the context of cancellation on account of improper feeding of results in the computer 4
- --------.-. .--.-. ---.- -j 7 / I / 14 o.a. 636.2013 and the Hon'ble Court had ordered that recruitment process be redone. This ratio / also fails to support the: case of the applicant. / On the other hand, in the matter of Union of India v. Anarid Kumar Pandey (1994) 4 5CR 486, it has been held that in a situation where dancellatiofl of a selection examinalion on ground of wide spread malpractice was inevitable and the successful cahdidates in the tainted examination were asked to sit for another test, no demand for show cause could be claimed.
Further in Union:of India v. Tarun Kumar Singh 2001 AIR SCW 1928 the Honble Supreme Court has held:
the procesof selection which stands vitiated by adoption of large scale malpractice to a public office, cannot be permitted to be sustained by Court of law. Tht apart an individual applicant for any particular post does not get a right to be enforced by a Mandamus unless and until he is selected in the process of selection and gets the letter of appointment."
In State of Haiyana v. Sübhas Chander Marwaha 1973 (2) SLR 137, and in Lila lDhár v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1981 SC 1777, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is a settled principle of law that selection has always been considered as an administrative function and the administrative authority is regarded as the best judge for it. As. long as the function of such authority is within the law, courts will be sloWt-o interfere;
rather it has no business to interfere. The Court does not also function as an appellate forum in selection matters.
Accordingly, we hold that as the applicant himself had partidipated in the re-examination, the relief so&ht against the respondent authorities by calling for order of status quo on the new recruitment process initiated by the Ordnance Factory Dum Dum vide its advertisement dated 2026th October, 2012 is infructuous.
Regarding issue of appointment letter to the petitioner withoyt any further delay, as the results of the re-examination held on 30.11.2014 against 27 posts are yet to be declared, it is premature for the Tribunal to interfere in this matter.
r V
15 o.a. 636.2013 The question of compensation to the applicant for harassment and causing irreparable loss to the applicant does not arise as because he himself had volunteered to forego the temporary offer of appointment dated 12.3.2011 from the respondent authorities.
The O.A. is abcordingly dismissed on merit.
Xl. The respondent authorities are at liberty to declare the results of the selection process held as a result of re-test against 27 vacncies and also the results of the fresh recruitment process against 145 vacancies XII: The interim crder dated 29.7.2013 of the Tribunal, tlpat, 'we direct that appointment to one post in subsequent notification of Noverriber, 2012, in Fitter (C) Mechanic, shalli abide by the result of this application" stands vacated. XII. Parties are to bear their respective costs.
C-
Th -
?. •
Tt
- -
(Dr. Nandita Chattbrjee (Manjula Das)
Administrative Member J)dicial Member
sP