Pankaj Mahata v. Union Of India And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE 05 24.4.2025 Sc Ct. no.2 WPA 26950 OF 2024 ------------- Pankaj Mahata Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

Ms. Juin Dutta Chakraborty Mr. Debasish Kundu Mr. Bidan Modak Ms. Arpita Kundu.

....For the Petitioner Mr. Tapan Bhanja ....For the UOI Ms. Juin Dutta Chakraborty, learned Advocate with Mr. Debasish Kundu, learned Advocate appears for the petitioner.

Mr. Tapan Bhanja, learned Advocate appears for the respondents UOI.

The petitioner was an aspirant for the recruitment of CAPFs for the year 2014. He reached up to the Physical Standard Test (PST) stage. Annexure- P3 at page 22 to the writ petition shows his candidature was rejected as he did not qualify the Chest measurement stipulation in terms of the employment notification. Clause 12.5.2 of the employment notification deals with the Chest measurement. The male candidate should have unexpanded 80 cm. and minimum expansion 5 cm. whereas, the Rejection Slip at page 22 shows the petitioner was found to be 80-83 cm.

Clause 12.5.5 of the employment notification provides for an appeal remedy by the unsuccessful candidate but the appeal should be preferred on the same day.

The rejection was held on October 17, 2024 Annexure-P4 at pages 23-24 to the writ petition shows that the petitioner preferred the appeal admittedly on October 24, 2024. The appeal was time barred ex facie in terms of Clause 12.5.5 of the employment notification. The CRPF authority, as would be evident from page 25 to the writ petition, had replied to the petitioner to approach the Recruitment Directorate for any reply.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner refers to Annexure-P5 at page 26 to the writ petition and submits that the petitioner at his own instance got examination done by an outside agency, where his Chest measurement shows within the limit as prescribed under the employment notification. The said examination was done on October 23, 2024, on the basis whereof the appeal was preferred, as submitted on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Tapan Bhanja, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that, the report of rejection was prepared by the experts before whom the PSTs is held. He also submits that the petitioner has not preferred the appeal within the time-frame as specified under Clause 12.5.5 of the employment notification. The appeal is time barred. Therefore, he submits that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same may be dismissed.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, it appears to this Court that, admittedly, the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner was grossly time barred in terms of Clause 12.5.5 of the employment notification. This Court in exercise of its power under judicial review cannot extend the said time-frame for preferring the appeal, as the Rule of the Game then shall be changed being the rule of the recruitment in the instant case. This is not permitted in law.

The report, Annexure-P5 at page 26 to the writ petition was caused to have been prepared at the instance of the petitioner by an outside agency. When an expert body is there to conduct the recruitment procedure who has found the petitioner to be ineligible purely on a technical and medical ground on which this Court has no expertise, there is no reason to disbelieve the said rejection report by this Court. No case of mala fide, arbitrariness or fraud have been made out by the petitioner. The appeal preferred was grossly time barred. In view of the above, this Court finds this writ petition being devoid of any merit. Accordingly, this writ petition, WPA 26950 of 2024 stands dismissed, without any order as to costs.

However, this order of dismissal shall not preclude the petitioner to approach the relevant directorate in terms of the reply of the CRPF authority appearing at

page 25 to the writ petition without creating any right or equity in favour of the petitioner.

This order of dismissal shall not have any effect whatsoever, if the petitioner chooses any other employment after being properly selected in any wing of the Defence Department.

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously.

(Aniruddha Roy, J.)