Shri P.Kannan v. The Lieutenant Governor And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ...
WPA/986/2022 Shri P. Kannan ... Petitioner Vs.
The Lieutenant Governor and others ... Respondents Mr. M. K. Thakur ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Ramendu Agarwal ...for the Administration Mr. G. Binnu Kumar ...for the private respondent January 19, 2023 [MAM] Item No.4 The petitioner has prayed for consideration of the representation dated 27th April, 2021 by the Chief Vigilance Officer, Port Blair. Having heard the learned Advocate representing the petitioner and considering the nature of the prayer couched in the Writ Petition prima facie it appears that an innocuous prayer has been made. However, on perusal of such representation dated 27th April, 2021 it appears that the petitioner has made serious allegations against the respondent no.3 in the matter of granting promotion in favour of the said respondent no.3 by the concerned authority of Port Blair Municipal Council. It has also been stated in the representation that based on forged and fabricated educational testimonials obtained from unaffiliated institution respondent no.3 secured job in
PBMC and he was wrongly promoted to the higher post from the feeder post.
Having found the allegations made against respondent No. 3 which is serious in nature this Court has considered the submissions made by the learned Advocates representing all the respondents.
The learned Advocate representing the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 submits that the petitioner is not working in PBMC. Therefore, grant of promotion in favour of the respondent No. 3 does not have any direct impact so far the petitioner is concerned. According to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 since this is not a Public Interest Litigation, the petition in present form is not maintainable.
Mr. Binnu Kumar, learned Advocate representing the respondent No. 3 while controverting the allegations made in the representation as well as in the Writ Petition against the respondent No. 3 has drawn attention of this Court to the orders passed by different Courts wherein the issue relating to eligibility of the respondent No. 3 to be promoted to the higher post was considered in view of the academic as well as professional qualification which the respondent No. 3 had at the material point of time.
The learned Advocate representing respondent No. 3 has prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition on imposition of exemplary costs.
This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned Advocates representing the parties and also perused order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench dated 25th November, 2005. The relevant part of the said order dated 25th November, 2005 is quoted herein below:- It is true that respondent No. 6 obtained diploma certificate in Automobile Engineering from a private institution which had not the affiliation/approval of AICTE. The moot question is whether at the time of interview and appointment of respondent No. 6 it was the essential condition or rule that candidate must possess certificate from an institution having affiliation/approval of AICTE. As there was no rule at the time the writ petitioner and respondent No.
6 appeared at the interview and were appointed making one of the essential qualifications having degree/certificate from an institution having approval of AICTE, the appointment or promotion of respondent No. 6 cannot be challenged alleging that certificate obtained by him was fake or that it was invalid certificate. All the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the writ petitioner are unacceptable and the decisions cited by the learned advocate for the petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
It further appears that the order passed by the Coordinate Bench on 25th November, 2005 was assailed by filing an intra court appeal and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench by passing order dated 20th February, 2006. Subsequently, the issue travelled before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by passing order dated 4th April, 2008 dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
In consideration of the aforesaid orders passed by the High Court as well as by the Apex Court, it appears that diploma certificate in Automobile Engineering of the respondent No. 3 obtained from private institution was found to be not beyond the purview of requisite educational qualification necessary at the material point of time when the respondent No. 3 was appointed and granted promotion. In view of such decision taken by the Coordinate Bench on 25th November, 2005 which was affirmed right upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court this Court finds that the issue raised in the Writ Petition is no more res integra. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed.
This Court deprecates filing of such frivolous Writ Petition by the Writ Petitioner containing wild allegations against the respondent No. 3 without any cogent materials. Petitioner is cautioned that in future if such practice recur the same shall be appropriately dealt with.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties after compliance of all required formalities.
( Saugata Bhattacharyya, J. )