SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Cal) 448

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SUJOY PAUL, CJ, PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.
Arup Bachhar  -  Petitioner 
Versus 
Union Of India And Ors. – Respondents 
WP.CT 20 OF 2024, WP.CT 21 OF 2024, WP.CT 22 OF 2024,WP.CT 23 OF 2024, WP.CT 24 OF 2024, WP.CT 25 OF 2024, WP.CT 26 OF 2024, WP.CT 27 OF 2024, WP.CT 28 OF 2024
Decided On :13-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Joyak Gupta, Adv., Mr. Mahadeb Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Nandadulal Bandyopadhyay, Adv., Mr. Pritam Ghosh, Adv.
For the Respondent: Ms. Chandreyi Alam, Adv., Ms. Indrani Chakraborty, Adv.

The completion of training does not confer employment rights without valid appointment; fraud in documentation disqualifies claims for promotion.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ Jurisdiction - Challenge against decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal on promotion to Commercial Clerk and Ticket Collector posts based on alleged fraudulent documents - Tribunal dismissed original applications, affirming factual findings of no valid appointment due to fraud and rejected claims. (Paras 1-19)

(B) Jurisdiction - Extraordinary powers under Articles 226/227 do not allow substitution of findings from inferior tribunals unless perverse or erroneous - Principles of natural justice and opportunity of hearing were upheld. (Paras 14-18)

(C) Fraud - Findings established that documents presented by petitioners were fabricated, disqualifying any claims for employment based on them. (Paras 12, 18)

Facts of the case:
Multiple writ petitions assailing a common order by the Tribunal determining that the petitioners lacked valid employee status in the railways based on fraudulent documentation regarding training and appointment.

Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the Tribunal’s findings and found no merit in the claims.

Issues: Whether completion of training confers a right to promotion without valid appointment and the effect of ongoing CBI investigations on the findings.

Ratio Decidendi: A completed training does not guarantee employment rights; the authority's examination of document genuineness is valid despite CBI investigations.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. judgment sets out factual background of petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. writ petitioners argue against tribunal’s findings. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. court reviews authority’s compliance with procedures. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 18)
4. court affirms necessity of legal error to pass judgment. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 19)
5. court dismisses petitions and vacates interim orders. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. In this set of writ petitions the order dated 10.05.2023 as passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the said Tribunal) in connection with O.A. 350/ 419/ 2016, O.A. 350/176/2018, O.A. 350/177/2018, O.A. 350/178/2018, O.A. 350/179/2018, O.A. 350/180/2018, O.A. 350/181/2018, O.A. 350/182/2018, O.A. 350/183/2018 and O.A. 350/184/2018 is assailed.

2. It is pertinent to mention herein that by a common judgment and order the said Tribunal disposed of the afore-mentioned 10 original applications.

3. Since identical questions of facts and laws are involved in these writ petitions and since the subject matter of challenge in these writ petitions is the common order dated 10.05.2023 as passed by the said Tribunal, we propose to dispose of the instance writ petitions by a common judgment. For our convenience, we also propose to deal with the facts as involved in WP.CT 20 of 2024 who is the original applicant before the said Tribunal in OA 350/180/2018.

4. For effective adjudication of the instant writ petitions, we propose to deal with some relevant facts leading to filing of the said 10 original applications before the said Tribunal and those are as under:

(i) Purportedly by an order dated 15.06.2024 the respondent no. 2 authority selected some Group D staff for the post of Commercial Clerk and Ticket Collector and directed to be spared for undergoing the training.

(ii) The writ petitioner in WP.CT 20 of 2024 claimed that he had completed such training at Zonal Railway Training Institute at Bhuli, Dhanbad and on completion of the same he was awarded with a training completion certificate dated 20.09.2004 by the said institute (Annexure A-4). Likewise, the other petitioners of the captioned mentioned writ petitions had also claimed to have undergone training in the same institute and they have claimed that they have been issued with similar such certificates from the same institute.

(iii) Even after completion of the alleged training the writ petitioners were not given appointment in the post of Commercial Clerk/ Ticket Collector by the railway authority and thus, they approached the said Tribunal by filing O.A. 653 of 2012 which came to be disposed of on 13.08.2013 whereby and whereunder the said Tribunal directed the respondent no. 2 herein to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the claim put forth by the petitioners considering the documents as has been annexed with the said original applications.

(iv) In case of writ petitioner of WP.CT 20 of 2024 such reasoned order dated 22.11.2013 was passed by the respondent no. 2 authority whereby and whereunder the said respondent no. 2 authority came to a factual finding that the writ petitioner in WP.CT 20 of 2024 has miserably failed to prove his initial appointment letter for the Group D post, pay slip, PF No. etc. and thus held that the said petitioner failed to establish that he was an employee of Eastern Railway at any point of time and/or he was selected for promotion to the post of Ticket Collector/Commercial Clerk as wrongly claimed.

(v) The respondent no. 2 authority also came to a finding that the writ petitioner(s) got wrongful entry in the Zonal Training School, Bhuli, Dhanbad on the basis of some fake documents which tantamount to fraud and thus, the matter was taken up for investigation by the CBI authority.

(vi) In case of other petitioners, almost identical speaking order was passed by the respondent no. 2 authority.

(vii) The writ petitioners in WP.CT 20 of 2024 challenged such reasoned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top