The Lieutenant Governor And ORS. v. Puspa Rani Biswas (Sasmal) And ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...

WP.CT/168/2021 The Lieutenant Governor and others ... Petitioners Vs.

Puspa Rani Biswas (Sasmal) and another ... Respondents Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty (through virtual mode) Mr. Ramendu Agarwal ... for the petitioners Mrs Anjili Nag ... for the respondents March 16, 2022 [GNC] Item No.2 This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated February 15, 2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench ( Circuit Bench at Port Blair) in OA No,.82/AN/2013.

It appears from the records that the writ petition has been affirmed on April 20, 2021 way beyond three years from the date of passing of the order of the Tribunal. It has been held in the catena of judgments by the Supreme Court and our High Court that even though there is no specific time period for filing a writ petition, the Courts would apply the prudent principles of allowing a person to file a writ petition within a reasonable period of time. Such reasonable period of time would have to be as per the Limitation Act and in cases such as these, three years is the appropriate time. On this first ground itself, the writ petition

fails. However, since counsels have taken a lot of time in arguing this matter, we have also gone into the merits of the case. This is a typical case of Government playing hot and cold with respect to different people who are similarly placed. The respondent/employee is part-time Craft Instructor who sought for regularization along with similarly placed people. It is clear from the records including the orders of the Tribunal and the Coordinate Bench of this High Court that the other persons who are similarly placed have been granted absorption expect for the respondent/employee herein.

Counsel on behalf of the petitioners, i.e. the Government has submitted that the Tribunal relied on the mode and manner of absorption of Miss Manjula, without going into the correct facts. According to counsel, Ms.Manjula had also undertaken a trade test or interview consequent to the memorandum dated 5th July, 2012 issued to her. However, it is clear from the records filed with this writ petition that no such test was ever carried out. This submission of counsel is without any basis in facts and/or in law.

The alternative submission of counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that even though Ms.Manjula was appointed illegally, the same cannot be allowed to be perpetuated in cases of other persons.

Ms.Anjili Nag appearing on behalf of the respondent/employee has submitted that in all the cases of absorption of similarly placed persons no examination was required as this was not a new selection process but absorption of the persons who had been working for number of years with

the Administration. Mrs.Nag relies on the judgment of the Tribunal, extract of which is provided below:- "9.

Though the memorandum dated 5.7.2012 refers to a trade test and interview, but the Minutes of the Departmental Selection Committee dated 24.8.2010 (wrongly recorded as 2010 but it is actually 2012) nowhere mentions that the said Ms. Manjula participated in any trade test or interview consequent to the memorandum dated 5th July, 2012.

10. In the absence of any reference by the Department Selection Committee and the consideration of the result of trade test and interview of Ms. Manjula, it cannot be said that she was put to any trade test or interview, though the memorandum dated 5.7.2012 suggests for the same. Accordingly, the contention of the respondents is unsustainable and untenable. On the other hand this Tribunal on more than one occasion while relaxing the age limit for the applicant, held that she is entitled for appointment on par with Ms. Manjula.

11.

In the circumstances and for the reasons mentioned above, the O.A. is allowed and the respondents are directed to appoint the applicant by considering her case on par with Ms. Manjula w.e.f. the same date and without compelling her to apply and to any tests with all consequential benefits. However, in the circumstances, the applicant is not entitled for any arrears."

Upon a perusal of the order of the Tribunal and the documents annexed in the writ petition, it is clear that Ms.Manjula did not undergo any test nor did any other similarly placed person undergo any test.

The stand now being taken by the petitioners is wholly unreasonable, unjust, illegal, arbitrary and against principles established in law.

In our view, there is no scope for arbitrariness and the moment one sees arbitrariness in the actions of the State, Article 14 of the Constitution of India steps in to correct such wrongs.

It may further be noted that against this order of the Tribunal a contempt petition had been filed by the respondent/employee and before the Tribunal, submission was made that absorption shall be done. In view of the same, the contempt petition was withdrawn by the concerned respondent/employee. However, contrary to the stand taken by the Government before the Tribunal, this writ petition has been belatedly filed.

Accordingly, we are of the view that the Tribunal has acted in accordance with law and upheld the principles of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There is no requirement to touch the impugned order.

This writ petition is accordingly, rejected and dismissed. ( Shekhar B. Saraf, J. ) ( Kesang Doma Bhutia, J. )