Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 298 (CAL)

PARTHA PRATIM NANDI v. UNION OF INDIA

2001-05-22

ALOK KUMAR BASU, ALTAMAS KABIR

body2001
Altamas Kabir, Alok Kumar Basu ( 1 ) THIS matter has been moved upon notice and Mr. R. N. Das, learned Advocate, has appeared along with Mr. Yatindra Nath Gupta, on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 to 4. The matter may, therefore, be treated as ready as regards service and having regard to the facts involved, we are also of the view that no useful prupose could be served in keeping the matter pending and the same may be disposed of even at this stage without filing of the affidavits. ( 2 ) THE subject matter of the present writ application is an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta, Bench on 19th September 2000 in O. A. 979/2000. ( 3 ) THE case as made out by the writ petitioners is that pursuant to an Employment Notice dated 1st March 1996, being anexure-A to the writ application, they had applied for being selected for the post of Safaiwalas. The method of applying, as indicated in the said Employment notices, was that apart from the applications of the candidates whose names had been sponsored by the local Employment Exchanges indicated in the said notice, other applications shall also be dropped in the box placed near the "welfare section" of the D. P. O's office, South Eastern Railway, Adra. The further case of the writ petitioners is that since despite the fact that they had also applled for filling up the vacancies in question, their cases had not been considered and ultimately they had to move before the Central Administrative Tribunal which directed the concerned Authorities to consider their applications in accordance with law. It appeas that the case of the writ petitioners was considered and it was observed in most of the cases that no applications had at all been made by them. ( 4 ) SUBSEQENTLY, by another Employment Notice, dated 16th June 1998, being annexure-D to the writ petition, applications were invited for filling up the post of Gangman and the same method was adopted for the purpose of receiving applications. The petitioners once again claimed to have made applications for filling up the post of Gangman pursuant to the said Notice and ultimately they moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, for more or less the self-same reliefs as prayed for earlier. The petitioners once again claimed to have made applications for filling up the post of Gangman pursuant to the said Notice and ultimately they moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, for more or less the self-same reliefs as prayed for earlier. The learned Tribunal disposed of the application by observing that it would not be reasonable, according to the principles of natural justice, to give any direction to the respondent authorities for the employment of the applicants against other vacancies then those announced by advertisement dated 1st March 1996. However, with regard to the future vacancies, the Tribunal observed that the candidature of the applicants against such vacancies could be considered and the applicants would be free to take their chances like any other candidates and try their luck like others. As indicated hereinbefore, this writ application is directed against the said order of the learned Administrative Tribunal. ( 5 ) APPEARING in support of the writ application, Mr. Ashok Sarkar, learned Advocate, submitted that the method adopted by the respondents for receiving applications are such that the candidate concerned could have no document in order to show that he/she had at all applied for filling up the post in question and that such candidate was left to the mercy of the respondents regarding his/her candidature being considered. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the respondents, it has been submitted by Mr. R. N. Das, learned Advocate, that since the matter relating to the first Employment Notice had been duly considered by the learned Tribunal earlier, no further relief could be sought by the writ petitioners with regard to the said notice of 1st March 1996. It was also not possible to ascertain as to whether the vacancies indicated in the Employment Notice dated 16th June 1998 had been filed up or not and that, in any event, the Tribunal had given liberty to the writ petitioners to take their chances with regard to such vacancies, if any. ( 7 ) HAVING considered the submission made on behalf of the respective parties, we are of the view that the procedure adopted by the respondents for receiving applications for filling up the post in question is highly arbitrary and contrary to the principles of transparency and natural justice. ( 7 ) HAVING considered the submission made on behalf of the respective parties, we are of the view that the procedure adopted by the respondents for receiving applications for filling up the post in question is highly arbitrary and contrary to the principles of transparency and natural justice. We, accordingly, direct that is future, all applications are to be received by the concerned authorities by issuing proper receipts against such applications and the candidates should be given right to apply for by sending their applications through registered post with acknowledgment due. ( 8 ) AS far as the Employment notice of 16th June 1998 is concerned, we, are informed that applications had already been made by the writ petitioners and some of the applications have also been annexed to the writ petition. In the event, such applications cannot be traced, the writ petitioners will be entitled to make fresh applications upon proper receipts being issued and the respondents shall thereafter consider the said applications for filling up the existing vacancies, if any, in accordance with law. The writ petitioners will be at liberty to meet the Divisional Personnel officer m (I), South Eastern Railway, Adra, respondent No. 4 herein, to find out as to whether their applications are traceable or not and in the event their applications are not traceable, they will be entitled to make fresh applications in the manner indicated earlier. The writ application is thus disposed of there will be no order as to costs. Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the records. If an application for urgent xerox certified copy of this order is made, the same should be supplied to the applicant expeditiously, subject to requirements of all the required formalities. Application disposed of.