CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY RECRUITMENT BOARD,KOLKATA Vs. AMIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject controversy relates to a selection process held by the Railway Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as RRB) in terms of Employment Notice dated July 28, 2003. The respondents before us were successful candidates who were selected for the post along with others. To be precise, altogether one thousand six hundred fifty one candidates were selected for appointment. The RRB however withheld appointment in respect of five hundred ninety three candidates on the ground of impersonation. Subsequently, one twenty four candidates were given appointment leaving four hundred sixty nine candidates. The respondents being five in number are in the batch of four hundred sixty nine candidates. It was alleged that they did not sit for the examination and someone else sat for the examination impersonating the respondents. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed an application before the Tribunal being O.A. No.817 of 2007 that the RRB should include the above respondents in the panel of successful candidates. They also relied upon the orders of the Tribunal passed in various similar cases.

(2.) Being aggrieved, RRB approached this Court by filing W.P.C.T. 25 of 2010. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated February 26,2010 dismissed the writ petition by holding that Tribunal did not commit any error. The Division Bench affirmed the decision of the Tribunal dated May 12, 2009. RRB approached the Apex Court. The Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition by extending the time to comply with the order of the Tribunal till August 31,2010. RRB did not comply with the order resulting in a contempt proceeding. The Tribunal vide order dated November 16,2010 asked the contemnor to be present in Court. The Tribunal ultimately disposed of the contempt proceeding vide order dated March 18,2011 appearing at page 533 of the petition which became the subject matter of the present application. RRB in their application contended that in terms of the order of the Apex Court they passed a reasoned order after giving personal hearing to the applicants. However, the handwriting expert did not turn up. Hence, the second part of the order could not be complied with. RRB contended that they had no control over the experts. Alter hearing the rival contentions, the Tribunal observed that since the RRB could not produce the handwriting expert they must issue suitable direction with regard to appointment of the applicants. The Tribunal however observed that the applicants would not be entitled to back wages and their seniority would be counted from the day when they would join their post.

(3.) Mr . Swapan Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that assuming the petitioner committed contempt of Court the Tribunal erred in passing a mandatory order of appointment which was outside the scope of a contempt proceeding. He relied upon the decision in the case of Ranjugopal Mukherjee vs. Ramapada Mahalder, 1991 2 CalLT 366. On merits, Mr. Banerjee contended that the RRB tried their level best to persuade the handwriting expert to appear for cross -examination. However, such repeated attempts failed. He also produced the records that would show that after expiry of the period fixed by the Apex Court the concerned handwriting expert wrote the letter to RRB making a tall claim on account of his fees and cost to attend the hearing.