Smti. Bindu Kumari v. The Union Of India And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL) WP.CT/26/2025 SMT BINDU KUMARI ... PETITIONER VS.
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS For the petitioner : Mr. Rajinder Singh Mr. Tapan Kumar Das Ms. Archana Devi Mr. D.Mallick For the respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Heard on : December 16, 2025 Judgment on : December 16, 2025 HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.
1.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated January 29, 2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata, Circuit at Port Blair in O.A. No. 351/51/A&N/2015 in this writ petition.
2.
By the order impugned, the claim of the petitioner for regularization in the post of Craft Instructor was rejected. The
learned Tribunal rejected the Original Application on the ground that the speaking order dated September 03, 2029 was not challenged by the petitioner at any point of time.
3.
Record reveals that the said order dated September 03, 2009 was under challenge in OA/103/AN/2009 which was heard analogously with OA/110/AN/2009. The said Original Applications were disposed of by an order dated April 30, 2012. The said order dated April 30, 2012 passed in the aforesaid Original Applications was challenged by the petitioner before a Coordinate Bench in a writ petition which was registered as WPCT/009/2013. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated September 25, 2013 thereby setting aside the order dated April 30, 2012 passed by the learned Tribunal with a direction upon the fourth respondent therein to consider the grievance of the petitioner as mentioned in the said application upon granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to all interested parties including the petitioner.
4.
The learned Tribunal, after noting that no order is found on the record after passing the order dated September 25, 2013 in WPCT/009/2013, observed that the petitioner was given an opportunity of personal hearing vide letter dated December 23, 2013. However the fact remains that no order of such hearing was produced before the Tribunal to show whether the directions contained in the order dated September 25, 2013 in WPCT/009/2013 was complied with or not
5.
When this matter was taken upon for hearing on December 11, 2025, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned advocate appearing for the respondents/Administration sought for time to produce the order, if any, passed pursuant to the direction passed by the Coordinate Bench on September 25, 2012 in WPCT/009/2013. 6.
Today (16.12.2025), when this matter is taken up for hearing, Mr. Kumar learned advocate appearing for the Administration produces a copy of the order dated August 25, 2014 and submits that the said order was passed pursuant to the direction contained in that order dated September 25, 2013 in WPCT/009/2013. 7.
On a query of the Court as to whether the said order was communicated to the petitioner, Mr. Kumar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent authorities could not produce any documents to show that the said order was communicated to the petitioner.
8.
The said order was also not produced before the learned Tribunal by the respondent authorities and the same has been produced for the first time before this Court. A copy of such order has been supplied to Mr. Rajinder Singh, learned advocate for the petitioner in course of hearing of this writ petition today. Since the said order was not supplied to the petitioner, the petitioner did not get any opportunity to challenge the same before the appropriate forum.
9.
After going through the said order dated August 25, 2014, this Court finds that the claim of the petitioner to be considered for regular appointment to the post of regular Craft Instructor (Music) was rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not possess essential qualification as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules notified on December 02, 2010 for the post of Craft Instructor (Music). 10.
Petitioner claims that he is possessing the requisite qualification for the post in question.
11.
Be that as it may, since the claim of the petitioner for regularization was rejected by the order dated August 25, 2014 and such order cannot be assailed directly in a writ petition before this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to challenge the same before the appropriate forum.
12.
In view thereof the order impugned stands set aside with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated August 25, 2014 passed by the Secretary-cum-Director (EDN) before the appropriate forum within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a server copy of this order.
13.
If an appropriate application is filed before the appropriate forum within the time limit indicated herein before, such application shall be decided on merits without dismissing the same on the ground of limitation as the order dated August 25, 2014 is produced for the first time before this Court.
14.
It is further made clear that the observations made herein before are only for the purpose of supporting the ultimate conclusion and the same shall not prejudice the rights of the parties before the appropriate forum.
15.
Parties to act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court.
( HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J. ) I agree.
( SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. )