DURGAPUR STEEL PLANT Vs. BIDHAN CHANDRA CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Durgapur Steel Plant (hereafter DSP, for short) and its Chairman, its Managing Director, Executive Director (Personnel and Administration), Senior Manager (Personnel/Recruitment) as well as Steel Authority of India Limited (hereafter SAIL, for short) and its Chairman have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by presenting this writ petition, whereby they seek to assail a judgment and order dated March 27, 2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, inter alia, allowing TA 2 of 2012, arising out of W.P. 400(W) of 2009 (Bidhan Chandra Chowdhury & Ors. v. Durgapur Steel Plant & Ors.) filed before this Court, as well as an order dated October 30, 2018 dismissing an application for condonation of delay (MA 300/768/2018) in presenting an application for review (350/00017/2018) of the said order dated March 27, 2018.

(2.) At the time W.P. 400(W) of 2009 was presented before a learned Judge of this Court, service matters relating to SAIL were entertainable by this Court; however, pursuant to notification dated March 31, 2010, SAIL was brought within the purview of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which resulted in transfer of W.P. 400(W) of 2009 to the tribunal.

(3.) The case pleaded by the petitioners in W.P. 400(W) of 2009, who are the respondents in this writ petition (hereafter the applicants), is this. An advertisement was published on October 16, 2007, followed by an addendum dated December 12, 2007, calling upon eligible candidates to offer their candidature for filling up 150 posts of Plant Attendant-cumJunior Technician. A candidate seeking appointment, in terms of the advertisement/addendum, was required to have qualified in the secondary level examination (Class X). The procedure of selection comprised of a written test and interview of candidates who qualified in such test followed by medical examination. The applicants having applied, they were found to be eligible and called upon to take a written examination. It was held on March 23, 2008. The list of successful candidates was published on May 15, 2008; a month later, i.e., on June 17, 2008, roll numbers of the candidates (assigned prior to the written test) who had qualified for the interview was published. Neither was the marks obtained by the unsuccessful candidates published nor was any cut-off mark that would serve as the bench mark to declare candidates as successful in the written test to qualify for interview was made known. Despite submission of representations by the first applicant seeking to know the marks obtained by him in the written test, he was greeted with silence. Although initially the recruitment process had been initiated for filling up 150 posts by the addendum dated December 12, 2007, 139 candidates had been offered appointment. The applicants thereafter came to learn that another set of 56 candidates were instructed to undergo medical test despite there being no indication in the advertisement/addendum that the number of vacancies are expected to increase and that such vacancies could be filled up from amongst candidates who participated in the recruitment process initiated by the said advertisement/addendum. Before the tribunal, the authorities of DSP/SAIL did not dispute that initially 139 candidates joined whereupon 56 more candidates, allegedly according to their position in the merit list, were called for interview. It is not disputed that a total of 194 (135+59) candidates were ultimately appointed in clear vacancies and anticipated vacancies, allegedly as per their rankings in the merit list. The authorities of DSP/SAIL denied any wrong doing insofar as selecting candidates for attendance in the interview is concerned and also asserted that they were not under any obligation to publish the marks of all the candidates who had taken the written examination or even to indicate the cut-off marks for selection of successful candidates in the written examination to participate in the next stage of selection. The order of the tribunal records the admission of the respondents before it that they had not preserved the entire panel for future reference or appointment, once the offers of appointment were issued to the selected candidates.