DEBASISH DEB Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M. Kar Bhowmik learned counsel along with Mr. B.C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. counsel alongwith Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner Shri Debashish Deb appeared in a selection for the post of Assistant Accountant, held by North Eastern Electrical Power Corporation (NEEPCO), respondent No. 2. He also received appointment letter, the last date of joining was 3.5.99. When he went to join the office of the respondent No. 4 in pursuance of the appointment letter, he was not permitted to join. Subsequently, on 12.4.99, he was informed that the appointment letter had been erroneously endorsed to the petitioner due to typographical mistake, hence the same stands cancelled. The petitioner has grievance against the said cancellation of his appointment letter.

(3.) The defence of the respondents that in the said selection, two candidates in the same name Shri Debashish Deb participated. The petitioner was at C.S. No. 239, another candidate of the same name Shri Debashish Deb bearing C.S. No. 217 was selected. His name appeared in the merit list. So, the appointment order of the petitioner was cancelled, the mistake occurred in sending the appointment letter to the petitioner. The another candidate Shri Debashish Deb bearing appointment order No. 217 was allowed to join on the post and he has been working since then. The original records of selection have been produced before the Court. I have perused the records and I find that 5 persons were selected in the said selection, the candidate in the name of Shri Debashish Deb bearing C.S. No. 217 was selected. His performance in the selection was much better than the petitioner. Since the petitioner had also the same name an inadvertent mistake occurred on behalf of the respondents in issuing the appointment letter. The mistake was immediately detected and the appointment letter of the petitioner was cancelled. On the basis of the result, the respondents have every right to cancel the appointment of the petitioner. There is no question of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution or any provision the law.