Ramalingam And ORS v. Deepak Kumar Xaxa And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WP.CT/17/2024 Ramalingam and Others Vs.

Deepak Kumar Xaxa and others Ms. Anjili Nag ... for the petitioner Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the Administration [on behalf of Mr.S.Chakraborty] Mr. Terrence D'Cruz ... for the pvt.respondents March 11, 2024 [SR] Item No.2 Heard Ms. Anjili Nag, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Terrence D'Cruz, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 25 and Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent nos.27 to 30.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners praying to quash the order dated 21.02.2024 in O.A. no. 351/00833/2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata (Circuit at Port Blair), whereby the Tribunal held that the inter se seniority of direct recruitees and promotees should have been determined in accordance with the provisions of O.M. dated 04.03.2014 and held that the respondents are in error in determining the inter se seniority of the applicants vis.a.vis the promotees on the basis of the date of appointment instead of with reference to the recruitment year. Accordingly, the Tribunal quashed the provisional seniority list dated 23.11.2016 and directed the respondents to recast the seniority list of the applicants and promotees, Sub-Inspectors in accordance with the DoPT O.M. dated 04.03.2014 within a period of four months from the date of the order.

The petitioners herein were not party to the aforesaid O.A. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are the promotees, SIs and their services were regularized in the year 2012 and 2013 as stated in the paragraph 7 and 8 of the affidavit accompanying the writ petition. Therefore, submission of

the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that in terms of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Ch. Patnaik - versus - State of Orissa, AIR 1998 SC 1926 and also in terms of the para 2.21 of the Police Manual, the seniority of the petitioners are to be counted from the date of their permanent appointment/regularization which is much prior to the date of permanent appointment of the respondents, who were applicants in the aforesaid O.A., i.e. 13.5.2014. Therefore, it is submitted that since valuable rights of the petitioners are affected by the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which has been passed without hearing them and consequently, the writ petition is maintainable.

In support of her submission learned Counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in January 2016 in WP.CT/413/2015 (Shri Jeeshan Iman and Others - versus - The Union of India and Others). She also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others - versus - M. A. Kareem and Others, 1991 (Sup2) SCC 183.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered on 25.07.1997 in K. Ajith Babu and Others - versus - Union of India AIR 1997 SC 3277, wherein the controversy with regard to the preliminary objection was as to whether for the purpose of review, a person can be said to be person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 22 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. We find that the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents in the present writ petition is not sustainable in view of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Jeeshan Iman (Supra) and later the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment of M. A.

Kareem (Supra) the petitioners are certainly persons aggrieved inasmuch as the impugned Judgment was passed by the Tribunal without getting impleaded the petitioners herein or without affording any opportunity of hearing to them while at the same time the Tribunal decided the question of seniority of promotees and direct recruitees. Under the circumstances, the preliminary objection as raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents is hereby rejected.

After the argument of the learned Counsel for the parties were heard at length. Both the learned Counsel for the respondents jointly submit that the impugned order may be set aside and the O.A. in question be restored to its original number and the Tribunal may decide the O.A. afresh in accordance with law within a time bound period after hearing the petitioners herein. Learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 25 herein submits that till the decision of the aforesaid O.A., the earlier seniority list may not be given affect by the authorities. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has no objection to the aforesaid submissions.

In view of the aforesaid and on agreement between learned counsel for the parties, we disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 in O.A.

No.

351/00833/2023 (Shri Deepak Kumar Xaxa and 24 others - versusUnion of India and four others) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata (Circuit at Port Blair), the aforesaid O.A. is restored to its original number and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with the following directions : i.

The petitioners herein are allowed to be impleaded as respondents in the aforesaid O.A. 351/00833/2023. Impleadment shall be carried out in the aforesaid O.A. 351/00833/2023 within two weeks from today.

ii.

All the petitioners herein shall appear before the Tribunal in the aforesaid O.A. within two weeks from today along with certified copy of this order. iii.

The petitioners herein shall submit their objections to the aforesaid O.A. within next two weeks.

iv.

The respondents nos. 1 to 25 herein shall submit their reply to the aforesaid objection of the petitioners within next two weeks. The respondent nos. 26 to 30 may also file their objections before the Tribunal within the same period, if they so desire.

v.

The Tribunal shall decide the aforesaid O.A. within next one month, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties to the said O.A.

vi.

The respondent nos. 1 to 25 herein shall also serve a copy of the aforesaid O.A. upon the petitioners herein within weeks from today.

vii.

The seniority list which has been quashed by the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 in O.A.

351/00833/2023 shall remain subject to the decision of the Tribunal.

It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merit of the case of the parties.

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. (Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.) (Kausik Chanda, J.)