TUMPA GHOSH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred challenging an order dated 6th October, 2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in an original application, being O.A. 350/01428/2016. The said original application preferred by the applicant being the writ petitioner herein was heard by the learned Tribunal along with twenty-two other original applications. The learned Tribunal dismissed all the applications observing, inter alia, that it would be futile to direct the respondents therein to conduct medical tests of the applicants since they did not secure such marks in the written test so as to be accommodated within the vacancies notified.

(2.) Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits from such observation of the learned Tribunal it is explicit that the petitioner's claim was not at all considered inasmuch as the petitioner emerged to be successful in the selection process and did secure sufficient marks in the written test so as to be accommodated within the vacancies notified.

(3.) He further submits that in response to an examination notice no.0112 dated 16th August, 2012 the petitioner applied for recruitment to a post carrying Pay Band-1, under OBC category. Upon scrutiny of the petitioner's application, she was asked to appear in a written test on 27th October, 2013 in which she succeeded and thereafter she was called to participate in the Physical Endurance Test [PET] on 7th March, 2014. The petitioner emerged to be successful in PET and her name was empanelled in the merit list published on 21st March, 2015. Surprisingly, thereafter the petitioner was not called for medical examination and her appointment was withheld. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and in response thereto, she was intimated that she had obtained 79.63 marks and that the last candidate sent for medical examination under OBC category secured 75.86 marks. In course of hearing of the present writ petition such facts could not be disputed by Mr. Basu learned counsel appearing for the respondents. However, we directed the respondents to disclose the reasons as to why the petitioner was not called for the medical examination and was not given appointment by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. In the affidavit filed, the respondents have admitted that the petitioner was successful in the written examination as well as in the PET and that her name was incorporated in the merit list. The sole ground stated towards denial of appointment to the petitioner, placing reliance upon a communication from the Railway Recruitement Cell, was that :