A.P. Bhattacharya,J. - (1.) This application under Sec. 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has been filed by the Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance and two others against Shri Ardhendu Bikash Chakraborty and two others for review/ reconsideration of the judgement passed by this Tribunal in T.A. 1952 of 86.
(2.) Respondents, Shri Ardhendu Bikash Chakraborty and two others filed a writ application in the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta, which by operation of Sec. 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, came to this Tribunal by way of transfer for disposal In that application, the present respondents challenged the action of the present applicants in not considering their cases for appointing them to the posts of Examining Officer. They appeared in a written test and having been qualified in the same appeared in viva voce test. The present applicants did not consider their cases as they had failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks in the viva -voce test. These respondents challenged that action. After considering the case of the respective sides, this Tribunal allowed the application with a finding that 15% of the total marks allotted for the viva -voce test should be the qualifying marks, and on that basis directed these applicants to consider the appointment of these respondents to the posts of Examining Officer. The judgement was passed on 9.6.89. Being aggrieved by that judgement, the present applicants, who were the respondents in that case, have filed this review application. The ground taken by them is that after the exercise of due diligence they could not produce the relevant records before this Tribunal at the time of hearing of T.A. 1952 of 86. The records were available on 1.9.89. It is their contention that on the basis of the guideline fixed by this Tribunal, the present respondent Nos. 2 and 3 may be considered for appointment to the posts of Examining Officer, but respondent No. 1 cannot be considered for appointment to such post as his position in the merit list was much below.
(3.) The applicants have also filed a Misc. Petition being No. M.P. 161 of 89 praying for condonation of delay in filing the review application. The cause shown by them is that despite vigorous attempts the relevant file could not be available before 1.9.89. After they got the records, they contacted their counsel and on his advice filed the review application.;