IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:-

The Hon’ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad

And

The Hon’ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya

W.P.C.T. 157 of 2024

with

CAN 1 of 2025

Bhola Yadav

V.

Union of India & Ors.

For the Petitioner :Mr. Anshunath Chakraborty.

Mr. Gourab Mukhopadhyay

For the Respondents : Mr. Rajendra Banerjee

Mr. Amal Kumar Datta.

Judgment on : September 25 , 2025

Madhuresh Prasad, J.:

1. The writ petitioner was the applicant before the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (hereinafter referred as the Tribunal). He has put to challenge a judgment dated 15/03/2024 passed by the Tribunal

in OA No. 00634 of 2014.

2. The present writ petitioner was appointed as a Gatekeeper on

21/07/2004. He claims that he was promoted as Shuntman “B” on 21/03/2007. The Divisional Personnel Officer, Howrah issued an office

memo on 15/09/2008 advising the Shuntman “B” to keep themselves ready for a suitability test which was to be held shortly. The authorities were also directed to give brief promotional training for all the candidates. The office memo contained a stipulation that if anybody failed to attend the training they will not be eligible for appearing in the suitability test. The office memo further directed that the competency certificate will be sent to the office of the undersigned upon successful completion of training. The petitioner’s name did not figure in this office memo.

3. The authority thereafter issued another office memo dated 29/09/2008 notifying the date fixed for suitability test for the post of shuntman “A”, which was to be held on 15/10/2008. The petitioner’s name was not appearing in this list also. Thereafter, suitability test was conducted. As a result of the suitability test, the panel was published by a memo dated 24/12/2008, provisionally notifying names for promotion from Shuntman “B” to “A”.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved by his exclusion in the promotion process approached the Tribunal by filing OA No. 1106 of 2011. It was contended by the petitioner before the Tribunal that he was not considered for the promotion process because he had not completed the two (2) year experience in the “Operating Department”. Some other persons who had been allowed to appear in the suitability tests had also not completed 2 years as Shuntman “B”. The petitioner was thus discriminated against.

The requirement of 2 years experience was relaxed by a communication dated 11/07/2006 from the Senior Personnel Officer (T) to one year. The petitioner however was deprived of the benefit of relaxation.

5. The Tribunal vide order dated 13.05.2013 passed in OA No. 1106 of 2011 directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s claim by reasoned and speaking order. The reasoned and speaking order was passed on

30.07.2013, in compliance of the Tribunal’s order.

6. The speaking order dated 30/07/2013 was assailed by the petitioner by filing an Original Application, bearing No. O.A. 00634 of 2014 before the Tribunal. The writ petitioner impleaded four persons as party-respondents in the OA. He alleged that those 4 persons namely Baidyanath Khan, Ganesh Rajawar, Kartik Chandra Mondal and Dipak Kumar Prasad were juniors to him, but were included in the list. The petitioner thus alleged discrimination. Those respondents who were juniors to him, were granted the relaxation. However, the benefit of relaxation was not extended to the writ petitioner. He submitted before the Tribunal that 5 vacancies were still existing in the unreserved category. The authorities wrongly considered the petitioner as having joined as Shuntman ”B” on 01/05/2007. According to him his date of joining as Shuntman “B” was 24/04/2007. He therefore submitted that the 4 persons impleaded in the OA were wrongly considered as the petitioner’s seniors.

7. The Learned Advocate representing the respondents, on the other hand submitted that the process was undertaken for filling up 72 vacancies of Shuntman “A” by way of promotion from Shuntman “B”. 3