A person who is otherwise selected as the fittest person for acting as a Commission-Agent of the Railway for performing job of sale of tickets on behalf of the Railway, should not lose such opportunity simply because he is one of the accused in a criminal proceeding under Section 498a read with Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 1 ) THIS mandamus-appeal is at the instance of a writ-petitioner and is directed against, the order dated 10th January, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge by which His Lordship rejected the writ application filed by the appellant in which the appellant prayed for setting aside the decision taken by the Railway Authority to cancel his selection to the post of "commission agent" for Badalpur Passenger Halt and to hold a fresh selection.

( 2 ) THERE is no dispute that pursuant to an advertisement given by the south-Eastern Railway Authority for awarding contract for working as a commission-Agent for Badalpur Passenger Halt in between Kanthi-Digha New broad Gage Section, the writ-petitioner participated in the process of selection and he was declared selected for working as a Commission-Agent by the letter of the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager/kharagpur dated 9th december, 2004.

( 3 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, by a further letter dated 22nd December, 2004, the said Senior Divisional Commercial Manager informed the appellant that the competent authority had decided to cancel the previous order awarding contract in his favour. It was further informed that the authority had taken the decision for fresh selection of Commission-Agent for Badalpur P. H. through a further notification which would be published shortly.

( 4 ) BEING dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision informed by the letter dated 22nd December, 2004, the appellant filed the writ-application before the learned Single Judge thereby praying for setting aside the said decision on the ground that neither any reason was assigned to him before cancelling the previous order awarding contract nor was any opportunity of hearing given to him to controvert any allegation against him, if any, and at the same time, he described the action of the Railway Authority as a mala filde one.

( 5 ) THE learned Single Judge, by the order impugned herein, has rejected the writ-application on the ground that the appointment was given purely on contractual basis and there was no question of absorption in the railway-Service and that in the letter giving contract in favour of the appellant, the Railway Authority specifically stated that "such appointment was purely contractual in nature and therefore, the learned Single Judge proceeded, the writ-petitioner, if had suffered any damages, had his remedy elsewhere.

( 6 ) BEING dissatisfied, the writ-petilioner has preferred the present mandamus-appeal.

( 7 ) MR. Bandyopadhyay, the learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has vehemently contended before us that the learned single Judge erred in law in dismissing the writ-application by totally overlooking the fact that his client never prayed for absorption in the Railway-Service but his grievance is that after selecting him as a Commission-Agent being the fittest candidate in the process of selection, the Railway Authority without assigning any reason and giving any opportunity of hearing could not withdraw such decision and issue afresh advertisement for selection.

( 8 ) IN this appeal, the respondent authority has filed affidavit-in-opposition and in such affidavit, it is stated that as the appellant was involved in a murder-case and was kept in the police-custody as well as the jail-custody in connection with the said criminal case, considering the public-interest at large, the Railway Authority decided to cancel the appointment and start a fresh process of selection. According to the Railway Authority, it has every right to cancel the previous decision if it decides not to appoint a person who is involved in criminal case in the public-interest.

( 9 ) THERE is no dispute that the writ-petitioner is indicted in a criminal case under Section 498a read with Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code consequent to the suicide of his sister-in-law (elder brother's wife) and is at present at large on bail.

( 10 ) THEREFORE, the prime question That arises for det