Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)Union Of India & Others vs Sukanta Mondal & Another on 11 February, 2014Author:Nishita MhatreBench:Nishita Mhatre1


01 11.02.14
rpan   Ct. No.17              W.P.C.T. No. 19 of 2014
                   In Re: An application underArticle 226of the Constitution of India filed on 22nd January,
                   2014.
                                                      AND
                              In the matter of: Union of India & Others
                                                                   Petitioners
                                                    Vs.
                                                Sukanta Mondal & Another
                                                           RespondentsMr. Swapan Banerjee ... for the Petitioners

                                    Mr. Joytosh Majumder
                                    Ms. Debjani Ray ...for the Applicant/Respondent No.1


                           The Original Application No.422 of 2013 was filed by the

                   Respondent No.1 seeking reinstatement in service.                              He was

                   appointed as a substitute in the year 2011. The appointment

                   letter indicates that he would be permitted to continue in

                   service for a period of six months or till selected candidates

                   from the Railway Recruitment Board's report were appointed

                   whichever was earlier, or the Respondent No.1 himself was

                   selected through the Railway Recruitment Board.The Tribunal has found that the Petitioners were

                   appointed substitutes in the place of the Respondent No.1 and

                   not candidates who had been selected by the Railways

                   Recruitment Board. In these circumstances, the Tribunal held

                   that the action of the Railways was illegal and directed that

                   the Respondent No.1 should be reinstated in service.In our opinion, there is no need to interfere with the

                   order of the Tribunal.The writ petition is rejected.There shall be no order as to costs.2Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied

for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on

compliance of all necessary formalities.(Nishita Mhatre, J.)


                          (Subrata Talukdar, J.)