Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 378 (CAL)

State of West Bengal v. Indrajit Pati

2019-03-18

DIPANKAR DATTA, SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. O.A. 875 of 2004 was presented by seven applicants who were aspirants for appointment on the post of Constable in the Kolkata Police Force. In paragraph 3 of the original application, it was averred as follows:- Limitation :- The applicants further declare that the application is within the limitation period as prescribed in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act." 2. The original application was taken up for consideration by the tribunal sometime between 2004 and 2006. Since the learned advocate for the applicants was not present, the tribunal delisted the original application. The original application was next listed on 3rd July, 2015 when an objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that the original application had been presented beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and that no prayer for condonation of delay had been made by the original applicants. It is on such ground that the respondents pressed for the dismissal of the original application as time barred. Hearing such submission of the learned advocate for the respondents, four out of the seven original applicants in O.A. 875 of 2004 filed an application for condonation of delay (M.A. 143 of 2015). 3. The tribunal, by an order 14th March, 2016, allowed M.A. 143 of 2015. This order is the subject matter of challenge in this civil revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution, dated 27th February, 2017. 4. For the purpose of deciding this civil revisional application, we consider it appropriate to notice the facts leading to presentation of the original application. The original applicants were in search of employment. Aspiring to be constables of the Kolkata Police Force, they had responded to a recruitment advertisement. They had participated in the recruitment process but were eliminated by reason of a viva-voce test. Such elimination was not challenged by the original applicants contemporaneously before the tribunal. It was only upon the outcome of a separate proceeding before this Court being publicized that the original applicants moved the tribunal. In such other proceeding, which was initiated in the year 1997 before the tribunal, holding of interview as a part of the selection process for appointing constables was challenged as illegal and unauthorized. The tribunal had upheld the challenge. In such other proceeding, which was initiated in the year 1997 before the tribunal, holding of interview as a part of the selection process for appointing constables was challenged as illegal and unauthorized. The tribunal had upheld the challenge. The respondents in that original application had moved a coordinate Bench of this Court which had the occasion to dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondents. The order of the tribunal was not complied with, resulting in initiation of contempt proceeding. The tribunal was approached by these petitioners with a belated application after contempt rule was issued. Despite the application being belated, it was averred in paragraph 3 (extracted supra), that the application was within the time. More than a decade after presentation of the original application, M.A. 143 of 2015 came to be filed upon the respondents objecting to the maintainability of the original application. The tribunal then proceeded to pass the following order on 14th March, 2016:- "This is an Application for condoning the delay in filing the Original Application No. 875 of 2004. We have heard Shri Das, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and Shri Roy, Ld. Counsel for the State Respondents and have perused the petition filed U/s. 5 of the Limitation Act. After considering the prayer made in this Application in terms of the grounds set out, we condone the delay and allow this Application." 5. We have perused the application for condonation of delay. Justification for the belated approach appears to have been given in paragraphs 5, 6 & 7 of such application. We have perused the same and have no hesitation to hold that the original applicants did not explain the belated approach sufficiently and therefore, the tribunal was completely in error in condoning the delay. In fact, the tribunal did not even record what the explanation was and whether such explanation amounted to sufficient cause being shown for the belated approach. The cryptic order of the tribunal (extracted supra) is indefensible and is therefore, liable to be set aside. 6. However, we do not wish to be too technical in our approach. In fact, the tribunal did not even record what the explanation was and whether such explanation amounted to sufficient cause being shown for the belated approach. The cryptic order of the tribunal (extracted supra) is indefensible and is therefore, liable to be set aside. 6. However, we do not wish to be too technical in our approach. An original application was presented before the tribunal in 2004 and such application had been listed for further consideration in 2015, i.e., more than a decade later; hence, we are of the view that the original applicants are entitled to a decision on merits as well, although we are conscious that the tribunal has not yet examined the merits. 7. It is evident from the factual narrative of the case that the original applicants submitted to the process of selection, more particularly the interview, without raising any demur. This suggests that the original applicants at the stage of participating in the interview had taken a calculated chance of being selected and despite the result of interview not being palatable to them, they had not questioned the interview as illegal and unauthorized. We have reasons to believe that they may not have at all approached the tribunal if the daily newspapers had not published news of the contempt proceedings being faced by the respondents. Having regard to the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in (2018) 12 SCC 635 (Karnati Ravi and another Vs. Commissioner, Survey Settlements and Land Records and others) and (2006) 11 SCC 464 (Chairman, U.P. Jalnigam & Anr. Vs. Jaswant Singh & Anr.), we are of the opinion that the original applicants were not entitled to any relief even if the original application had not been time-barred. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, the order dated 14th March, 2016 stands set aside with the result that O.A. 875 of 2004 on the file of the tribunal shall stand dismissed. 9. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.