IMPORTANT POINT
Assurances made by public authorities regarding employment must be honored, and failure to do so can lead to legal consequences.

JUDGMENT :

Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging an order dated 9th January, 2020 passed in the original application being OA 436 of 2016.

2. The petitioner’s case is that his name was sponsored by the employment exchange as a Schedule Caste (hereinafter referred to as SC) candidate for participation in a selection process for appointment to the post of Technician at All India Radio (hereinafter referred to as AIR), Calcutta in response to a requisition sent to the employment exchange for 4 vacancies (2 SC, 1 ST and 1 OBC). Thereafter, he was called for an interview on 15th January, 1997. The selection was limited to three candidates in SC category and his name appeared at serial no. 1 in the reserve panel. After selection and appointment of three persons, one Gautam Naskar was transferred from Kharagpur to AIR, Calcutta and given appointment under SC category without considering the petitioner’s claim. Challenging such selection of the candidates, the petitioner preferred OA 989 of 1997 and in a miscellaneous application being MA 435 of 1997 preferred by the petitioner, the learned Tribunal by an order dated 25th August, 1997 directed that the appointment given to the private respondents therein would abide by the result of the OA. Thereafter, the respondents called another candidate, namely, Biswajit Mondal to appear in an interview on 15th January, 1999 and as such the petitioner preferred a miscellaneous application being MA 30 of 1999 seeking an ad interim order to restrain the respondents from preparing any fresh panel by holding such interview on 15th January, 1999 without appointing the petitioner. In course of hearing of the said MA 30/99, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that ‘till filling up of post of one OBC and one ST is taken up the applicant’s case would not be considered and that as soon as vacancy would arise against the SC quota the applicant would be absorbed’. In view of such submission, no injunction was granted and it was observed that the petitioner would get all benefits, if he succeeds in the OA. Subsequent thereto, the said OA was disposed of on contest by an order dated 9th December, 2004. In paragraph 18 of the said order it was observed as follows :

‘As per the order of this Tribunal dated 15.1.99 in MA 30/99 the learned Counsel for the respondents had stated before the Tribunal that till filling up of the concerned reserved quota of one OBC and one ST is taken up the applicant’s case would not be considered and that as soon as the vacancy would arise against the SC quota the applicant would be absorbed. Therefore, by this subsequent qualification of this assurance it cannot be conceded that the respondents will not be bound by the submission made by them before the Tribunal in MA 30/99. Hence, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant in terms of the assurance given by them to this Tribunal as above and take steps to absorb him against available vacancy in accordance with law within three months from the date of communication of this order. If no such vacancy exists at present, he should be absorbed against the next available vacancy within a period of 6 months. The application and MAs are disposed of accordingly. Thereafter will be no order as to costs.’

3. Challenging the said order, the respondents herein preferred a writ petition being WPCT 276 of 2005. Upon contested hearing, the writ petition was disposed by an order dated 23rd February, 2009 observing inter alia as follows :

‘The Tribunal however, directed the Administration to consider the case of the respondent in view of the concession made by the Administration as contained in the order dated January 15, 1999. We do not find any scope of interference on that score. However, we find that the Tribunal after observing that he would be considered as and when vacancy would arise, directed consideration within a period of six months. We only obser