The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the dismissal of the petitioner's original application in a sports quota recruitment case, holding that her team did not secure the requisite medal or position for preference.
Writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty & The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee
| WPCT 106 of 2021 Suchismita Roy versus Union of India & Ors. |
||
|---|---|---|
For the Petitioner |
: | Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, Mr. Barun Chatterjee. |
| For the Respondent Nos. 1-5 | : | Mr. Ajit Kumar Chaubey, Ms. Suparna Kundu, Mr. Vaibhav Prakash. |
| For the Respondent No.6 | : | Mr. Shibaji Kumar Das. |
| Hearing is concluded on | : | 4thDecember, 2023. |
| Judgment On | : | 21stDecember, 2023. |
Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.
2
3
4
same and such denial is derogatory to the provisions of Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
5
notification and as such the learned Tribunal rightly did not interfere with the selection process. There is no dispute that the private respondent no.6 did participate in the concerned championship and obtained valid certificate from the competent authority. In case of the respondent no. 6, certificate had been issued by the Secretary of West Bengal Volleyball Association in Form-2 as per instruction contained in the prospectus cum application form. The original participating certificate of the respondent no. 6 has been issued under the signature of Secretary General and Chairman, Control Committee of VFI for the period of participation from 19th April, 2017 to 25th April, 2017.
6
of VFI and the office bearers being the Secretary General and the Treasurer. It was also decided to revoke the suspension of VFI and restore its annual recognition for the 2017 and as such the argument of Mr. Majumdar that the respondent no. 6 did not obtain a certificate from the competent authority is not acceptable.
7
8
proposition of law as laid down in the judgements, upon which reliance has been placed by Mr. Majumdar, however, the same are distinguishable on facts.
(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)
(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting preference to the petitioner when she represented the State in the Senior National Championship without securing a medal.
Whether the selection process was arbitrary or mala fide given the dispute regarding the VFI President's tenure.
Whether a patent error of law or jurisdictional mistake exists in the Tribunal's judgment warranting certiorari.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Elizabeth Jacob Vs. District Collector, Idukki and OthersReferred¶6
Elizabeth Jacob Vs. District Collector, Idukki and Others, (2008) 15 SCC 166 · Who else cites this
Rohitash Kumar and Others Vs. Om Prakash Sharma and OthersReferred¶6
Rohitash Kumar and Others Vs. Om Prakash Sharma and Others, (2013) 11 SCC 451 · Who else cites this
Ramesh Chandra Shah and Others Vs. Anil Joshi and OthersReferred¶24
Ramesh Chandra Shah and Others Vs. Anil Joshi and Others, (2013) 11 SCC 309 · Who else cites this
U.V. Mahadkar Vs. Subhash Anand Chavan and OthersReferred¶25
U.V. Mahadkar Vs. Subhash Anand Chavan and Others, (2016) 1 SCC 536 · Who else cites this
Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences & Another vs. Bikartan DasExplained¶33
Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences & Another vs. Bikartan Das, 2023 (6) Supreme 141
Suchismita Roy
Union of India
Tapabrata Chakraborty
Partha Sarathi Chatterjee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
