Smti.Bandana Kullu v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPCT/27/2025 Smt. Bandana Kullu Vs The Union of India and others Mr. Rajinder Singh Ms. Archana Devi ... for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the Administration December 11, 2025 [AKB] Item No.4 The order dated January 29, 2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata Circuit at Port Blair in OA 351/52/A&N/2015 is under challenge in this writ petition.

Mr. Singh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the order impugned suffers from perversity as it records that the petitioner has not challenged the speaking order dated February 20, 2015, but the fact remains that such order was challenged by the petitioner in the said original application.

Such submission is disputed by Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned advocate appearing for the administration. By drawing the attention of the Court to the reliefs claimed in the said original application Mr. Kumar submits that the petitioner has only prayed for quashing of the advertisement dated April 20, 2015 and has not prayed for setting aside of the order dated 20.02.2015.

The learned Tribunal passed an order dated December 23, 2014 in OA 351/00163/2014 directing the petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation along with relevant documents supporting his case for regularization of service in the post of Craft Instructor from the date of initial appointment with consequential arrears before the Director of Education. Pursuant to the said order, petitioner submitted a comprehensive representation dated January 28, 2015. Such representation was disposed of by the Deputy Director (Education) by an order dated February 20, 2015. Thereafter the petitioner approached the learned Tribunal by filing OA 351/52/A&N/2015.

Though Mr. Kumar is right in submitting that the petitioner did not pray for setting aside the order dated 20.02.2015 passed by the concerned authority, but after going through the averments made in the application being OA 351/52/A&N/2015 we find that the order dated February 20, 2015 was assailed by the petitioner before the Tribunal. After going through the order impugned, this Court finds that submissions were advanced by the respective parties with regard to the issue of regularization and also as to whether the petitioner was discriminated against while rejecting his prayer for regularization on one hand and allowing the prayer for regularization of others pursuant to several orders passed by learned Tribunal.

Thus it appears that the issues regarding regularization as well as the discrimination were argued by the respective parties before the learned Tribunal. However, the Tribunal rejected the original application on the ground that the order dated February 20, 2015 has not been challenged at any point of time.

To the mind of this Court, the propriety of the order dated 20.02.2015 was assailed in the said Original Application though specific prayer for setting aside the same and for regularization was not made.

There is no quarrel to the proposition of law that unless a particular relief is prayed for, the same cannot be granted to an applicant. In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court feels that the petitioner should not be non-suited only on technical grounds. For such reason this Court is inclined to interfere with the order impugned with liberty to the petitioner to pray for amendment of the original application. For the reasons as aforesaid the impugned order is set aside. The original application stands restored to the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata, Circuit sitting at Port Blair with liberty to the petitioner to apply for amendment of the original application.

If such an application is filed the learned Tribunal shall consider and dispose of the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent and by passing an order. Thereafter

the Tribunal shall consider the original application afresh and dispose it off after giving effective opportunity of hearing to the respective parties and by passing a reasoned order. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner shall not, by way of amendment made out a new case. Before parting, this Court observes that all the observations made herein before us are only for the purpose of supporting the ultimate conclusions arrived at by us in this order.

[Hiranmay Bhattacharyya] [Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.]