Dismissed

Parsuram Mahantaray v. Union of India

Orissa HC13 Dec 2017WP(C)/14037/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order rejecting a departmental promotion application. Upholding the Tribunal's decision, the Court held that mere empanelment creates no legal right for appointment, allowing authorities to cancel examinations based on requisites vigilance reports of irregularities under Article 227 jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; no interference with the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Parsuram Mahantaray Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2017)

¶1

W.P.(C) NO.14037 OF 2017

¶2

06. 13.12.2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶3

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 03.01.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.260/00864 of 2015 rejecting the Original Application.

¶4

The petitioner along with 30 others, who are working under the Divisional Railway Manager, East Coast Railway, Khurda Road Division in different posts, have approached the Tribunal in the aforesaid Original Application contending inter alia that they having completed three years of regular service are eligible for the purpose of promotion to the post of Goods Guard under 60 % Departmental Promotion Quota (DPQ). The Railway Authority vide letter dated 24.04.2015 issued a notification for selection to the post of Goods Guard in the operating department against 60 % Departmental Promotion Quota. In response to the said notification, the applicants submitted their applications. After due scrutiny of the applications, 125 nos. of employees found eligible to appear in the written examination. Accordingly, written examination was held on 09.08.2015 and 16.08.2015 respectively. The result was published on 16.09.2015. When no promotion was given to the selected candidates, they have made representation to the authority, who did not take any action in the matter.

¶5

¶6

3.1 While matter stood thus, a fresh notification was issued declaring 130 candidates are eligible to appear in the written test and the result of earlier examination was cancelled. Being aggrieved by the said highhanded action of the opposite

¶7

¶8

parties the applicants have approached the Tribunal in the aforesaid Original Application.

¶9

A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties before the Tribunal contending that earlier 130 nos. candidates were found eligible out of whom only 125 nos. candidates appeared in the examination on 09.08.2015 and 16.08.2015 respectively. After the result was declared the Vigilance Department of East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar seized the selection papers and informed the authorities that gross irregularities in evaluation of answer sheets have taken place. In view of such report of the Vigilance Department, the written examination held on 09.08.2015 and 16.08.2015 was cancelled and a fresh notification was issued.

¶10

The Tribunal taking into consideration the respective contention raised by the parties in the Original Application, counter, rejoinder etc. and after perusing the records of the Vigilance Department come to a conclusion that the authorities were justified in cancelling the examination and fixing fresh dates for the written examination. Accordingly, the Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the Original Application.

¶11

Law is well settled by the Apex Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1991 SC 1612 that mere empanelment of a candidate does not create a legal right for appointment. Since the authorities were subjectively satisfied regarding the irregularities committed in the process of

¶12

¶13

evaluation of answer sheets of the written examination, it is open to them to cancel the same. The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. It is submitted at the Bar that in the meantime in pursuance of the fresh notification, examination has already been held and promotions have been given to the selected employees. They have already joined in their promotional post.

¶14

In view of the discussions made hereinabove, since the Tribunal has passed a reasoned order and there is no error apparent on the face of the record this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶15

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶16

S.Panda, J.

¶17

…………………….. K.R.Mohapatra, J.

Parsuram Mahantaray v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parsuram Mahantaray v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs Registrar,Cat,Cuttack Bench,Ctc

Union of India Vs Registrar,Cat,Cuttack Bench,Ctc

Sahadeb Munda Vs Union of Inaia

Bijan Ku.Parida Vs State of Odisha

Manoj Kumar Bal Vs State of Orissa

Pravat Kumar Mohanty Vs Union of India