Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SUJOY PAUL, PARTHA SARATHI SEN
Radheshyam Mridha – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.
1. The subject matter of the instant writ petition as filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is the judgment and order dated 03.05.2013 as passed in OA 1776 of 2010 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said Tribunal in short). By the order under challenge, the said Tribunal dismissed the said original application as filed by the writ petitioner herein by holding that there is hardly any scope to interfere with the result as published by the respondent authorities in connection with Advertisement No. 01/10/2007-P.III., a copy of which is annexed at Page No. 286 of the instant writ petition.
2. For effective adjudication of the instant lis some relevant facts leading to filing of the said original application before the said Tribunal are required to be dealt with and those are discussed hereunder in seriatim:-
(i) The Respondent No. 1, authority published an advertisement being Advertisement No. 01/10/2007-P.III in the Employment News 8-14th December, 2007 for the recruitment of Zoological Survey of India Scientist-C for the one post.
(ii) Similarly, the Respondent No. 1 authori
The Tribunal did not act beyond its jurisdiction, and the writ petitioner failed to demonstrate any substantial grounds for interference, resulting in dismissal of the petition.
Participating without objection in the selection process bars a candidate from later contesting its fairness; procedural adherence in evaluation is crucial for validity.
The court established that recruitment processes must adhere strictly to applicable rules and directives, emphasizing the importance of lawful procedures in public employment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the selection process must adhere to the terms of the advertisement and the prescribed rules, and any deviation from these norms is impermissi....
The main legal point established is that the plea for parity with appointed candidates is not applicable if the petitioner had not been appointed, and the court has the authority to quash an order if....
Employment and Service matter - Grade-IV employees - Selection process - Selection process is not subject matter of challenge in absence of any grounds, subsequent action of issuing appointment order....
![Meenal Shashikant Joglekar ] R/of Worli, Mumbai Vs State Of Maharashtra, ] Through Information & Public Relations Dept. - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 103](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Bombay_3.png)
The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by assessing candidates' qualifications instead of deferring to the Selection Committee's discretion, and the aggrieved candidate's failure to challenge the adv....
The court upheld the recruitment process as compliant with prior orders, emphasizing limited judicial review in such matters.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
