- (1.) THIS application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of an unsuccessful applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act and is directed against order dated July 13, 2006 passed by the Central administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, in O. A. No. 510 of 2005 thereby rejecting the application filed by the writ-petitioner by which he challenged the the appointment of the private-respondent in the post of External Department Delivery Agent ("edda" ).
(2.) THE facts giving rise to filing of the present writ-application may be summed up thus: (a) The names of the writ-petitioner and 12 other persons were sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the purpose of filling up the post of EDDA. The writ-petitioner along with other candidates appeared before the selection-board and subsequently, one Kamal Sardar was appointed in the said post. b) The private-respondent in the past filed an application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act before the Tribunal challenging the appointment of the said Kamal Sardar, which gave rise to O. A. No. 1244 of 1995 and the Tribunal set aside the said appointment by directing the respondent authority to make fresh selection after taking into consideration the candidatures of all the candidates in the process of selection. The Tribunal specifically directed that the appointment should be given to the person who secured the highest mark in the Madhyamik examination among the condidates after complying with the rules of reservation of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribe, if those were applicable. c) Pursuant to the said direction given by the Tribunal, the respondent authority selected the private-respondent No. 5 for the said post. According to the writ-petitioner, he secured the highest mark in the Madhyamik Examination among all the candidates and therefore, it was the duty of the respondent to appoint him in the said post and accordingly, the said selection was challenged by the writ-petitioner by filing an application under section 19 of the Act before the Tribunal. d) The application was contested by the respondent by filing reply thereby contending that the private-respondent secured the highest mark being 427 without taking into consideration the marks obtained in the additional subject and therefore, he was rightly appointed. According to the respondent, the writ-petitioner secured 428 marks in the Madhyamik Examination which included 65 marks obtained in the additional subject and accordingly, 31 marks were added after the deduction of pass marks of 34 and therefore, if the marks of the additional subject are excluded, the total marks will come down to 397. On the other hand, the private-respondent did not get the benefit of any additional mark as he secured less than 34 marks in the additional subject. The respondent, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application filed before the Tribunal. e) The Tribunal below accepted the contention of the respondent and held that the private-respondent should be deemed to have secured the highest mark in the Madhynmik Examination as he secured 427 whereas the writ-petitioner obtained 397 without taking into consideration the marks obtained in the additional subject.
(3.) BEING dissatisfied, the writ-petitioner has come up with the present application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.;