Shri Abdul Riyaz v. Union Of India And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WP.CT/49/2024 Shri Abdul Riyaz Vs.
Union of India and Others Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the petitioner Mr.Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the respondents December 05, 2024 [SR] Item no. 1 1.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 12th November, 2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata.
2.
The matter relates to a selection process of Pharmacist. Raising certain issues in connection with the questions put in the question paper the petitioners approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal.
3.
After hearing the parties the Tribunal disposed of the original application by recording that "during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that it would suffice his purpose if the authorities be directed to consider the representations of the applicants in its true letter and spirit which they had submitted before the authorities, treating the OA as part of it and communicate the action take, if any, by answering their grievance within a stipulated period of
time and in the interim, the said selection list may be not be given effect to till the communication of their reply". 4.
The petitioners have averred in the writ petition that though the hearing before the Tribunal took place on 12.11.2024 but the order was actually uploaded in the website on 27.11.2024.
5.
It is, after the order was uploaded, that applicants got to know that the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants was not correctly recorded.
6.
The petitioners/applicants never prayed for a direction upon the authorities to consider their representation as the respondent authority allegedly considered their prayer and took action which was under challenge before the learned Tribunal. 7.
Prayer before this Court is to engage an expert to look into the errors in the question paper.
8.
Learned senior counsel representing the Administration opposes the prayer of the petitioners. It has been submitted that as the learned advocate representing the petitioners mentions about wrong recording of the submission made on behalf of the applicants, accordingly, the same ought to be brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal. It is only upon the submission made by the learned advocate for the applicants that the impugned order has been passed.
9.
Upon hearing the parties, it appears that the applicants seek for an engagement of an expert on the subject who can
verify the questions that were set in the examination which according to the petitioners, were out of the syllabus and there were certain wrong answers mentioned in the answer key. 10.
Once the authority has already disclosed its stand and has acted consequent thereto accordingly, remanding the matter back to the same authority for review and reconsideration of the issue all over again may be a futile exercise and may not serve any purpose.
11.
In view of the above, the petitioners are granted leave to approach the Tribunal with their prayer within one week from date.
12.
In the event such application is filed, the Tribunal is requested to consider and dispose of the same at the earliest. 13.
Till any order is passed by the learned Tribunal in the application to be filed by the petitioners, the merit list published by the authority shall not be given effect to. 14.
The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 15.
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. )