Form No. J.(2)

Item No.11 Court No. 1 KS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE HEARD ON: 27.01.2026 DELIVERED ON: 27.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN WP.CT 259 of 2025 Union of India & Ors.

Vs.

Debojyoti Ghosal Appearance:-

Mr. Suman Chattopadhyay Ms. Tapasi Sinha Palit …..For the Petitioners Mr. Yatindra Nath Gupta Mr. Chandan Prakash …..For the Respondent JUDGMENT (ORAL): Per, Sujoy Paul, CJ.:-

1. Parties are represented through their respective learned counsel. With the consent, matter is finally heard.

2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the order of Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) dated 02.05.2025 passed in O.A. No.350/1138/2016 whereby the original application filed by the respondent/applicant has been disposed of by granting him partial relief.

3. The admitted facts between the parties are that the Department issued a Notification for selection of certain Group – D Posts pursuant to which, the candidatures were required to be submitted up to 31st October, 2005. The Department gave appointment to 10 candidates out of 303 selected candidates from the select list.

4. Certain candidates alleging that the Railway Administration has adopted a pick and chose policy and did not appoint similarly situated persons, filed O.A. No.935 of 2008 (A. Tulsi Das & 104 Others. Vs. Union of India & Ors.). The Tribunal by order dated 26.03.2010 dismissed the said O.A. Aggrieved, 80 candidates out of 105 original applicants before Tribunal filed WP.CT 100 of 2010 (Sk. Fakruddin & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.). This Court clubbed certain similar petitions and passed a detailed order in WP.CT 100 of 2010, relevant part of which is reproduced by the Tribunal in the impugned order.

5. The present respondent/applicant approached the Tribunal seeking similar benefits by contending that his name also finds place in the select list of 2008 and similarly situated persons have succeeded from the High Court. The Tribunal by impugned order opined that in service jurisprudence, it is important to grant similar benefits to similarly situated person. Accordingly, it was directed that the present respondent be granted similar benefit as granted to the petitioners in WP.CT 100 of 2010 notwithstanding the fact that the present respondent was not a party in O.A. No.935 of

2008 (A. Tulsi Das & 104 Others. Vs. Union of India & Ors.).

CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT

6. Learned counsel for the Department submits that the order of Tribunal is erroneous mainly for three reasons. Firstly, the respondent is claiming himself to be a “substitute’

but, he does not fall within the definition of “substitute”. Secondly, the selection Notification was issued way back in 2005 and select list was drawn in 2005. The applicant did not file any original application or petition claiming similar benefits before this Court and was sitting tight over the matter till the outcome of WP.CT 100 of 2010. In the said case, this Court opined that the order is based on a concession given by Railway Administration and such concession shall not create any precedent. For this reason alone, the order passed by this Court in WP.CT 100 of 2010 cannot be extended in favour of present respondent. Lastly, it is urged that Section 21 of Administration Tribunals Act prescribes a statutory period of limitation. The respondent did not approach the Court within limitation and Tribunal ignored this aspect and mechanically followed the order passed by the High Court.

STAND OF THE RESPONDENT/APPLICANT

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent is similarly situated candidate qua Sk. Fakruddin & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. and was not a party in WP.CT 100 of 2010 and hence, Tribunal has not committed any error in extending the similar benefits. He submits that after the pronouncement of judgment of this Court in Sk. Fakruddin & Ors.