Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Aloke Pal & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors.) on 8 November, 2011
Author: Ashim Kumar Banerjee
Bench: Ashim Kumar Banerjee
1
8.11.2011
sl.no.7
WPCT 845 of 2005
(Aloke Pal & Anr. -vs- Union of India & Ors.)
Mr. Tapabrata Chakraborty
Mr. Abhijit Basu ...for the petitioners
Mr. D.K. Singh ...for the respondents
A complex situation arose in view of erroneous functioning of the authority. The authority was supposed to fill up 30% of the vacancies in the promotional post through a jump promotion. A written examination was held by giving opportunity to all eligible candidates. Thirty-nine candidates passed out the written examination by securing 60% marks in both the papers. The petitioners Aloke Pal and Sumanta Kumar Kirtania were two of them. Initially, the authority called twenty-two candidates for viva voce to fill up twenty-three posts. Out of balance seventeen, twelve candidates approached the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal and obtained an order permitting them to appear at viva voce. Thus, the authority permitted thirty-four candidates out of thirty- nine candidates to participate at viva voce test. Ultimately, sixteen candidates were given appointment. We are concerned with unreserved category, where fifteen posts were filled up through such process. We are told that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 became 16th and 17th in 2 the list and thus, became unsuccessful in obtaining such permission.
The matter did not rest there. The authority wanted to accommodate the balance five candidates. The authority adopted a peculiar mode by fixing the bench mark before hand by taking into account the last successful candidate, who got appointment in general category and then held an interview. Needless to mention, all those candidates were accommodated by giving appropriate marks in the interview, so that they could reach the bench mark, as alleged by the petitioners.
Mr. Singh however, disputes each and every contention raised by Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. According to him, the petitioners failed to show any malafide allegedly conducted by the Railway.
The petitioners approached the Tribunal challenging the supplementary interview to be followed by filling up of the vacancies, which did not find favour with the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that since they were not successful in the interview process for the first time, the subsequent examination for filling up of the vacancies could not be held. Hence, this petition before us.
The earlier Division Bench heard the matter and asked the authority to produce the records. Accordingly, Mr. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the South Eastern Railway has produced the records along with 3 written instruction, wherefrom it appears that the allegations made by the petitioners seem to be justified. The authority conducted the first interview, where the petitioners were unsuccessful. The authority then proceeded to consider the next lot and accommodated them. However, the authority did not give opportunity to the unsuccessful candidates in the first interview to participate in the supplementary interview.
Here, lies the lacuna. The Tribunal possibly overlooked this aspect. The promotional process is exclusively within the domain of the authority. Since we find error in the decision making process as highlighted above, we leave it open to the authority to give a fresh look to the problem.
The authority would accommodate the petitioners by giving suitable opportunity to be considered in such limited quota and if they succeed in such process, they should be given notional benefit from the date, when the first lot was given appointment. In case the authority is not in a position to accommodate the petitioners, the authority must call back the entire lot and conduct a fresh selection process. The present incumbents working in the promotional post should not be disturbed for the time being and after the selection process is over, the successful candidates would get back their seniority as on the date of the initial appointment. The petitioners would also get such benefit, although notionally. 4
With these observations and directions, the order of the Tribunal is modified.
WPCT 845 of 2005 is disposed of without any order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.
(Ashim Kumar Banerjee,J.) (Shukla Kabir (Sinha),J.)