JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, J. - (1.) THE petitioner in this WPCT under Article 226 of the Constitution of India dated January 21, 2013 is aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench (Circuit at Port Blair) dated April 30, 2012 (WPCT p.141) dismissing her OA No.58/AN/2012 at the admission stage itself. The Administration published an advertisement in 1997 inviting applications for appointment to the posts of Primary School Teacher (in short PST) and Graduate Trained Teacher (in short GTT). The petitioner applied for both the posts. The successful candidates including the petitioner were interviewed in October and November 1997.
(2.) TWO separate merit lists were published. While in the merit list for PST the petitioner was placed at no.204, in the merit list for GTT she was placed at no.221. The notified vacancies for the posts were 33 (PST) and 09(GTT). All the notified vacancies were filled by appointing candidates according to the merit lists. Having regard to her respective merit positions, there was no scope for appointing the petitioner to either of the posts. Then till the year 2003 the Administration could not initiate any recruitment process for the posts. Under the circumstances, steps were taken for appointing teachers to both the posts on contract and ad -hoc basis. For the purpose the Administration, however, followed the otherwise inoperative two merit lists prepared and published in connection with the 1997 recruitment process. The petitioner was also appointed on contract basis on several occasions.
(3.) CONSIDERING the conditions of the retrenched teachers who served during the period from 1997 to 2003 on contract and ad -hoc basis, the Administration took a one -time policy decision to recruit the eligible among them against the existing vacancies as direct recruits. Accordingly, the Administration issued an order No.2145 dated May 17, 2005 (WPCT p.111) mentioning the terms and conditions on which the eligible persons would be considered for appointment. Conditions 4,5 and 6 of the order No.2145 are quoted below: - "4. They should have rendered a minimum of two years of service to the Department on contract/adhoc basis against created civil posts. 5. They should possess the essential educational qualification for the concerned teaching post against which they are proposed to be recruited. 6. All such recruitment shall be considered as fresh recruitment and candidates should have no claim whatsoever on the service earlier rendered." In 2008 the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing an OA No.23/AN/2008 alleging, inter alia, that ignoring her merit based claim for appointment to either of the posts, the Administration appointed less meritorious persons to both the posts from the 1997 merit lists. Her specific case was that some persons appointed were below her in the merit lists. By an order dated December 10, 2008 (WPCT p.85) the Tribunal disposed of the OA directing the Administration to consider her case for appointment as a PST against existing or future vacancy.;