Rupam Ghosh v. Union Of India And ORS.

20.05.2026 Item No.24 Ct. No.1 KS WP.CT 109 of 2026 Rupam Ghosh Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

Mr. P. Mukherjee Mr. N. K. Das Ms. Shreya Hazra .....For the Petitioner DICTATED BY SUJOY PAUL, CJ.:

1. Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel appears for the petitioner.

2. Heard on admission.

3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.05.2026 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata in O.A.

No.350/0538/2026 whereby his prayer for deciding his representation for treating him eligible for selection in Group - B Post was considered and disposed of.

4. The submission of petitioner/applicant before the Tribunal was that he is presently working as Senior Section Engineer with effect from 1st August, 2022. Under the relevant eligibility criteria, he is eligible to be considered for Group - B Post. The selection will take place on All India Basis on 24.05.2026 and 31.05.2026.

The petitioner prayed that his representation for treating him eligible may be directed to be decided by treating him to be eligible to appear in the said selection.

5. The Tribunal disposed of the petition by directing the representation to be decided within 15 days from 08.05.2026, the date on which the impugned order was passed. If petitioner is found eligible, he may be allowed to appear in the examination to be held on 24.05.2026 or 31.05.2026.

6. The singular contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that if petitioner is found to be not eligible while taking decision by the Railways and it is communicated to him on 23rd or 24th May, 2026, his fate will be sealed and he will neither be able to appear in the examination nor get the fruits of said selection.

7. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. The prayer of petitioner for deciding his representation has been entertained by the Tribunal and a stipulated time limit has been fixed.

8. In our opinion, in view of prayer made, the Tribunal has taken a plausible view. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere in the order impugned. So far contention of petitioner is concerned, that if he is found to be ineligible on 23rd/ 24th May, 2026, his fate will be sealed, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that even after the said dates, the petitioner can call in question the said decision, if it goes adverse to the petitioner in appropriate proceedings and Court can always grant him appropriate relief, in accordance with law.

9. No case is made out for interference.

Admission is declined.

10. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.

11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities.

(SUJOY PAUL, CJ.) (PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)