Santoshi Devi v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WP.CT/47/2024 Santoshi Devi Vs.

The Union of India and Others Mr. K. M. B. Jayapal ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr.Adv.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the Administration Ms. Prabha Kiren ... private respondent (in person) December 09, 2024 [SR] Item no. 1 1.

The order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal vacating the interim order passed by the Tribunal on 08.07.2024 is impugned in the instant writ petition.

2.

The original application relates to the selection of Labour Inspectors in the Andaman and Nicobar Administration. 3.

The initial selection process was scrapped by the Administration because of certain mistakes in the answer key. A fresh selection process was conducted where the petitioner as well as the private respondent participated.

4.

In the said selection process also, seven questions were found to be incorrect. The authority proceeded with 93 questions out of 100.

5.

The petitioner challenged the same before the Tribunal on the ground that the rules of the game cannot be changed in the midst of the game.

6.

The Tribunal initially passed the interim order directing that the selection process pertaining to the examination will be kept in abeyance. Thereafter, application was filed by the private respondent and also by the Administration highlighting that because of scarcity of the Labour Inspectors, the Administration finds difficulty to proceed with the day to day affairs.

7.

The application for vacating the interim order was considered by the Tribunal and after hearing the submission made on behalf of the parties, the Tribunal was of the opinion that on evaluation of the balance of convenience it is expedient, in the interest of justice, to proceed with the selection process. The Tribunal clearly recorded that the final selection shall be done only after getting leave of the Tribunal. 8.

According to the petitioner, since the reason for vacating the interim order was already in existence on the day the interim order was passed, accordingly, the interim order ought not to have been vacated. It has been submitted that there has been no change in the circumstances for vacating the interim order.

9.

We have heard the submission made on behalf of all the parties and on perusal of the documents placed before this Court, it appears that the interest of the petitioner has been well protected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has mentioned that the final selection shall be done only after getting leave of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly recorded that the original applicant will not derive any corresponding benefit by keeping the proceeding in abeyance indefinitely.

10.

The earlier selection process in which the petitioner participated stood scrapped by the Administration. As of now it does not appear that the petitioner can be aggrieved by any manner because of vacating the interim order. 11.

It will be open for the petitioner to raise all points before the Tribunal at the time of final hearing.

12.

The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 13.

Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities. ( Amrita Sinha, J. ) ( Uday Kumar, J. )