A public recruitment process must be governed by clear, pre-defined, and transparent criteria. Selection based solely on the unguided subjective discretion of a committee, without communicated standards or objective marking modalities, is arbitrary and legally unsustainable.

O R D E R

Per: Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member:

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 praying for the following relief(s):

“a) An order do issue quashing the order passed by the respondents authority dated 17.03.2020 rejecting the candidature of the applicant;

(b) An order do issue directing the respondents authorities to issue Appointment Letter for the post of Kabadi (Men) Allrounder in pursuance of Notification/Employment Notice dated 25.01.2012 issued by the Kanchrapara Workshop, Eastern Railway in favour of the applicant with all consequential benefits;

(c) An order do issue directing the respondents authority to show cause for issuing the impugned speaking order dated 17.03.2020 rejecting the candidature of the applicant in excess of the authority;

(d) An order do issue directing the respondents authority to produce all the relevant records in connection with the Selection/Appointment before this Hon'ble Tribunal;

(e) Costs;

(f) For any other appropriate order or orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper.”

Facts of the case:

2.1 A notification dated 21.12.2012 was published by the Chief Works Manager, Eastern Railway for Recruitment of sports persons against Sports Quota for the year 2012-13 in the disciplines of Volleyball and Kabaddi in the Pay Band (PB)-1 + with Grade Pay (GP) Rs. 1800/- in the Pay Scale of Rs. 5200-20200/- (Annexure A/1). Vide the said notification, 01 post of Volleyball Men and 01 post of Kabaddi Men was advertised.

2.2 The applicant had applied against the said notification and was found by the screening committee to fulfill the eligibility criteria.

2.3 A three Member Recruitment Committee was constituted. The said Committee conducted the trial and on the basis of the performance of the applicant in the trial, he was found fit to be called for interview on 29.03.2013 by the Recruitment Committee. However, the said Recruitment Committee, after assessment, found the applicant to be unsuitable for appointment since he had been assigned 57 marks out of 100 which is less than the qualifying marks fixed at 60 marks. Since the applicant was only the eligible candidate, no one was selected in the discipline of Kabaddi for the financial year 2012-2013 in the Kanchrapara Workshop.

2.4 The applicant, Shri Ashraful Mondal had filed an Original Application being O.A. No. 566 of 2013 before this Tribunal which was disposed of, vide order dated 26.06.2013 with direction upon the respondent authority to take a decision on the representation dated 23.04.2013 and to communicate the same to him.

2.5 Pursuant to the above order, the Chief Works Manager, Kanchrapara vide his letter dated 18.07.2013 addressed to the applicant informed him that the Selection Controller had declared him unsuitable.

2.6 The applicant had challenged the order 18.07.2013 issued by the Chief Works Manager, Eastern Railway, Kanchrapara before this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1255 of 2013 which was disposed of by this Tribunal, vide order dated 20.11.2019 with directions upon the Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Kolkata to re-examine the matter particularly in the light of the representation made by the applicant on 23.04.2013 and to decide the matter afresh in terms of the norms as laid down in the said notification.

2.7 However, aggrieved by the said order of this Tribunal, the respondents had filed a WPCT being WPCT No. 13 of 2022 which was however dismissed by the Hon’ble High Cour