Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SUJOY PAUL, PARTHA SARATHI SEN
Radheshyam Mridha – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction of the tribunal and factual background. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding discrimination and selection process. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. defense arguments against writ petition. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. court's analysis of selection criteria and candidate eligibility. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. significance of pleadings and allegations in tribunal. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. legal principles governing writ jurisdiction. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 7. conclusion regarding merits of the writ petition. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
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 Adv
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
