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.

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 authority also published another advertisement being Advertisement No. 01/09/2008- P.III in the Employment News 29th March- 4th April, 2008 for recruitment of Zoological Survey of India Scientist-C for 17 posts.

(iii) The writ petitioner applied for the said one post of Scientist -C in respect of the aforementioned advertisement of 2007 and subsequently on 09.04.2008 he also applied for the post of Scientist -C in connection with the advertisement of 2008.

(iv) The Screening Committee while shortlisting the candidates rejected the candidature of the writ petitioner on the ground of age bar.

(v) Being aggrieved with such decision the writ petitioner filed OA No. 1069 of 2008 before the said Tribunal and the said Tribunal by an interim order dated 20.10.2008 permitted the petitioner to appear in the interview in the selection process of 2007.

(vi) The notification dated 30.03.2009 as published by the respondent authorities regarding upper age limit of the departmental candidates were challenged by filling OA Nos. 1069 of 2008, 1070 of 2008, 1073 of 2008, 1074 of 2008 and 1102 of 2008 before the said Tribunal.

(vii) By an order dated 30.09.2009 the said Tribunal held that the said notification dated 30.03.2009 regarding upper age limit is not applicable and thus directed the authorities to publish the result.

(viii) The writ petitioner participated in the selection process in respect of advertisement of the year 2007. However, he found himself unsuccessful in such recruitment process.

(ix) The writ petitioner challenged the said result as published in connection with the advertisement of 2007 before the said Tribunal by filing OA No. 1776 of 2010 which was however dismissed by the said Tribunal by an order dated 06.12.2010.

(x) On 08.03.2011 the writ petitioner filed WP.CT No. 72 of 2011 before this High Court challenging the said order dated 06.12.2010 as passed by the said Tribunal.

(xi) On 28.04.2011 this High Court allowed WP.CT No. 72 of 2011 and remanded OA No. 1776 of 2010 for consideration afresh.

(xii) By the impugned judgment and order dated 03.05.2013 the said Tribunal again dismissed OA No. 1776 of 2010 giving rise to the instant writ petition.

3. At the time of hearing