Abdul Khalid v. Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WP.CT/8/2024 Abdul Khalid Vs.

Union of India and others Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar Ms. Vinita Devi ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondents March 13, 2024 [SR] Item No.2 Heard Shri Gopala Binnu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shatadru Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner claims to be a contractual employee of a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, namely, the Andaman and Nicobar State Sports Council. The grievance of the petitioner is that a circular dated 19.09.2011 was issued by the Government granting relaxation in age for the purpose of recruitment in government department. By the aforesaid circular, age relaxation was granted to certain category of person working in any of the departments of Andaman and Nicobar Administration. Undisputedly, the society registered under the Societies Registration Act is a distinct legal entity than the department of Andaman and Nicobar Administration. Consequently, by the impugned order dated 17.10.2023 in OA/351/01088/2023/AN, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata dismissed the O.A of the petitioner herein recording detailed reasons.

We have perused the aforesaid impugned order dated 17.10.2023 and we do not find any legal infirmity in it. The petitioner, as per his own showing, is a contractual employee of the society and thus he is not covered by the aforesaid circular dated 19.09.2019 for the purpose of relaxation of age. The impugned order does not require to be interfered with.

For all the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. (Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.) (Kausik Chanda, J.)