Disposed¶14

Shri Abdul Riyaz v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC5 Dec 2024WP.CT/49/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pharmacist recruitment; selection process; question paper errors; questions out of syllabus; wrong answers in answer key; expert to verify questions; CAT Kolkata Bench original application disposed 12.11.2024; Tribunal order uploaded 27.11.2024; counsel's submissions wrongly recorded; remand to same authority futile; leave to file fresh application within one week; merit list not to be given effect to pending Tribunal order; Port Blair circuit bench; Amrita Sinha; Uday Kumar.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without costs; petitioners granted leave to file a fresh application before the Tribunal within one week, with a request to the Tribunal for expeditious disposal and an interim injunction that the published merit list remain uneffectuated pending the Tribunal's decision. ¶14

Shri Abdul Riyaz Vs Union of India and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should entertain the petitioners' prayer to engage an expert to examine the Pharmacist question paper for errors, the petitioners alleging that some questions were outside the syllabus and that certain answers in the answer key were wrong. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

Once the authority has already disclosed its stand and acted consequent thereto, remanding the matter back to the same authority for review and reconsideration all over again may be a futile exercise and may not serve any purpose.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners were granted leave to approach the Tribunal afresh with their prayer within one week from the date of the order.

¶11

Key takeaways

Upon filing of such fresh application, the Tribunal was requested to consider and dispose of it at the earliest.ratio¶12
As an interim measure, until any order is passed by the Tribunal on the fresh application to be filed by the petitioners, the merit list published by the authority shall not be given effect to.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WP.CT/49/2024 (High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair; bench: Amrita Sinha and Uday Kumar, JJ.; order dated 05 December 2024): Writ petition arising from a Pharmacist recruitment selection process examined through the CAT Kolkata Bench. The Tribunal's order of 12 November 2024 had disposed of the original application by recording that consideration of the applicants' representations would suffice, with the selection list kept inoperative in the interim; the petitioners complained that their counsel's submissions were mis-recorded in that order (uploaded only on 27.11.2024) and prayed for engagement of an expert to verify question-paper errors, questions allegedly outside the syllabus and wrong answers in the key. The Court held that remanding the matter to the same authority, which had already disclosed its stand and acted on it, might be futile; it instead granted leave to lodge a fresh application before the Tribunal within one week, requested early disposal thereof, and directed that the published merit list not be given effect to pending the Tribunal's decision. Petition disposed of, no costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ]

WP.CT/49/2024

Shri Abdul Riyaz

Vs.

Union of India and Others

¶7

Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar … for the petitioner

¶8

Mr.Shatadru Chakraborty, Sr.Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar … for the respondents

¶9

December 05, 2024 [SR] Item no. 1

¶10

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 12^th November, 2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata.

¶11

The matter relates to a selection process of Pharmacist. Raising certain issues in connection with the questions put in the question paper the petitioners approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal.

¶12

After hearing the parties the Tribunal disposed of the original application by recording that “during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that it would suffice his purpose if the authorities be directed to consider the representations of the applicants in its true letter and spirit which they had submitted before the authorities, treating the OA as part of it and communicate the action take, if any, by answering their grievance within a stipulated period of

¶13

time and in the interim, the said selection list may be not be given effect to till the communication of their reply”.

¶14

The petitioners have averred in the writ petition that though the hearing before the Tribunal took place on 12.11.2024 but the order was actually uploaded in the website on 27.11.2024.

¶15

It is, after the order was uploaded, that applicants got to know that the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants was not correctly recorded.

¶16

The petitioners/applicants never prayed for a direction upon the authorities to consider their representation as the respondent authority allegedly considered their prayer and took action which was under challenge before the learned Tribunal.

¶17

Prayer before this Court is to engage an expert to look into the errors in the question paper.

¶18

Learned senior counsel representing the Administration opposes the prayer of the petitioners. It has been submitted that as the learned advocate representing the petitioners mentions about wrong recording of the submission made on behalf of the applicants, accordingly, the same ought to be brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal. It is only upon the submission made by the learned advocate for the applicants that the impugned order has been passed.

¶19

Upon hearing the parties, it appears that the applicants seek for an engagement of an expert on the subject who can

¶20

verify the questions that were set in the examination which according to the petitioners, were out of the syllabus and there were certain wrong answers mentioned in the answer key.

¶21

Once the authority has already disclosed its stand and has acted consequent thereto accordingly, remanding the matter back to the same authority for review and reconsideration of the issue all over again may be a futile exercise and may not serve any purpose.

¶22

In view of the above, the petitioners are granted leave to approach the Tribunal with their prayer within one week from date.

¶23

In the event such application is filed, the Tribunal is requested to consider and dispose of the same at the earliest.

¶24

Till any order is passed by the learned Tribunal in the application to be filed by the petitioners, the merit list published by the authority shall not be given effect to.

¶25

The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶26

Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.

¶27

( Amrita Sinha, J. )

¶28

( Uday Kumar, J. )

Shri Abdul Riyaz v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Abdul Riyaz v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smti. Fatima Bibi Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Union of India and Ors. Vs Shri.Subrata Biswas and Ors.

The Lt.Governor and Ors. Vs Mohammed Haneef and Anr.

Santoshi Devi Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Shri Nadeem Jamil Vs the State

The Lt.Governor and Ors. Vs Shri.Tarun Kanti Roy