Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 10152
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Smt. Urmita Datta (Sen), J, Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, ACJ
Debasish Dutta – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
O.A. 350/689/2023
For the Applicants: Mr. S.K. Dutta, Ms. A. Roy
For the Respondents: Mr. R. Halder
Individuals similarly situated must be treated equally in employment matters, affirming rights to appointment based on prior judicial resolutions.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Eligibility for appointment - Applicants seeking appointment as Substitute Group 'D' in South Eastern Railway, arguing that despite being part of the merit list, their claims were unfounded due to their non-participation in earlier cases; the Tribunal holds that similarly situated candidates should receive equal treatment, referencing judicial precedent concerning employment rights. (Paras 12, 13, 14)
(B) Service jurisprudence - The principle of equality mandates that individuals similarly situated must be treated alike, asserting that the applicants are entitled to the same relief as those granted judicial appointments in related cases. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The applicants presented a case for appointment as substitutes in Group 'D', highlighting the approval and delays in their recruitment despite their inclusion in the merit list of candidates.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal directs the respondents to grant the same benefits as previously awarded to similar candidates under the same conditions, with a consideration of their previously established merit list. The applicants will be appointed notionally from the date they filed their application, without back wages for the intervening period.
Issues: The main issues involved were the justification for denying the applicants their appointed positions and the contention that their non-participation in earlier applications precluded their claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasizes that the principle of treating similarly situated individuals equally ought to prevail, especially when delays have been due to the administrative inaction of the respondents.
Result: The applicants are entitled to appointment as per the earlier directions accorded to the similarly situated candidates.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case involves applicants seeking appointment as group 'd' substitutes based on inclusion in a merit list. (Para 2 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. counsel for applicants argue against administrative delays and non-participation in lawsuits. (Para 3) |
| 3. court emphasizes equality in treatment for similarly situated candidates, reinforcing judicial precedents. (Para 5 , 12) |
| 4. conditions requiring equal treatment based on previous judicial decisions are reaffirmed. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. applicants granted appointment with immediate effect from their application date, excluding back wages. (Para 14 , 16 , 17) |
ORDER
Per Hon’ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member :
1. The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act , 1985, praying for the following relief(s) highlighting the facts of the case:
“a) Leave be granted to the applicants having a same and similar cause of action as stated in paragraph 4 (M) hereinabove to join together and file the instant application jointly under the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987;
b) DIRECTION do issue quashing and/or setting aside the impugned reasoned order dated 16.12.2022, being Annexure "A-6" hereto, and thereupon directing the respondent authorities to grant appointment forthwith to the applicants to the post of Substitute Group 'D' upon condoning the age bar of the applicants as on the date of enlistment the applicants were within age limit;
c) INJUNCTION do issue restraining the respondent authorities from acting in any manner or any further manner on the basis of the impugned reasoned order dated 16.12.2022, being Annexure "A-6" hereto;
d) DIRECTION do issue upon the respondent authorities directing them to produce and / or cause to be produced the entire records of the case and upon such production being made to render conscionable justice by passing necessary orders thereon;
e) Cost and costs incidental hereto;
f) And/or to pass such other or further order or orders as to your Lordships may seem fit and proper;”
2. Facts as narrated by the applicant in his O.A are as under:
In South Eastern Railway, there were about 12,000 vacancies in Group 'D' category. The then General Manager, considering the exigencies of the administration then prevailing took a decision to appoint 'Substitutes' in Group 'D' category of South Eastern Railway. Applicant No.1, the son of an employee of Eastern Railway applied for appointment as Substitute Group 'D'. In total up to 31st October, 2005, 1167 candidates applied for the said appointment. Out of the said 1167 candidates, 303 candidates were selected for appointment as Substitutes in Group 'D' in South Eastern Railway. The then General Manager finally approved all the aforesaid 303 candidates for appointment as ‘Substitutes' in Group 'D' in the lowest grade of Group 'D' in South Eastern Railway. Respondents by a notice dated 02/11/2005 published the names of all the aforesaid 303 successful candidates under three separate lists. The name of the applicant No. 1, an OBC candidate enlisted in Sl. No.14 and the name of the applicant No. 2, a General candidate was appearing in the serial No. 17 of the list of candidates recommended by various heads of the department of South Eastern Railway. South Eastern Railway started giving appointments to the candidates from the list. First of such appointment was given in the month of July 2007 in the post of Substitutes Group 'D'. Since nothing was forthcoming in regard to the grant of appointment of the applicants, the applicant No. 01 made a representation on 29.06.2010 to the authority and in response of which on 17.08.2010 the Chief Personnel Officer, (Recruitment) issued a Memo for the General Manager, (P) informing the applicant No.01 that since the issue was pending before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta, no further action would be taken till the order is passed by the said court. The applicant was informed
