1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/289/2019 Yohannan Sajeevan and another Vs. Andaman and Nicobar Administration and others Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir … for the petitioner Ms. G. Mini … for the respondents July 30, 2026 [SR] Item No.1 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petition has chequered history. 3. It is necessary to go into the same since what is sought to be enforced before this Court, are orders passed by a Division Bench of this court. The first of such order is dated 29.01.2013 passed in WPCT/183/2012. In the said writ petition, a Division Bench of this Court has affirmed the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal . 4. The Tribunal in the said OA/72/AN/2011 vide order dated 10.02.2012 held that the application of the petitioner no.1 for the post of Principal was incomplete. He did not produce his B.Ed Certificate. In so far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, the UPSC was directed to consider her experience as 16 years etc. Her application was directed to be processed. 5. A Division Bench upheld the same in the aforesaid WPCT/183/2012 vide Order dated 29.01.2013 and directed the case of the petitioner no.1 also to be considered along with 2 petitioner no.2, as he produced the B.Ed degree and directed the petitioners to be ‘accommodated’ against future vacancies. 6. Subsequently, a writ petition being WPA/223/2016 was filed challenging the appointment of three persons as Principals in three government schools. The writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 5th December, 2017. 7. The said decision was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 13.06.2019 passed in MA/003/2018. The off-shot of the aforesaid decision is that a two years graduation degree based on which master degree was obtained, would still fall foul of the UGC requirements of a valid master degree, for appointment to the post of Principal. The Division Bench however refused to interfere with the appointments of the three persons due to passage of a long period of time. 8. In the meantime, however, promotion to the post of Vice Principal was being considered by the Administration. The applicants therein were holding the post of Post Graduate Teacher in various government schools, under amended recruitment rules dated 04.10.2022. 9. A stipulation under Note 3 of the said amended Recruitment Rules, came to be struck down as ultra vires by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA/303/2024 dated 01.11.2025. The said Note 3 stipulated that the educational qualifications of the candidates would not be looked into in such recruitment process. The decision of the Tribunal was 3 upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in WPCT/58/2025 vide judgment dated 24th April, 2026. 10. The writ petitioners herein seek enforcement of the order dated 29.01.2013 (supra) and the findings of the Single and Division Benches in the judgment and order dated 05.12.2017 and 13.06.2019 respectively. 11. According to Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners would argue that the subject writ petition was filed immediately after the judgment and order dated 13.06.2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. The said order was not interfered with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and SLP carried therefrom was dismissed. 12. Learned Counsel for the respondents Ms. G.Mini submits that the instant writ petition is not maintainable before this Court since it pertains to service under the Central Government. The writ petitioners ought to have approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for the relief sought. 13. This Court, however, finds that the petitioners are seeking enforcement of the orders passed by the Single and the views of a Division Benches of this Court. Indeed the writ petition is maintainable for the said purpose. 14. The rule of alternative statutory remedy is not an absolute one in a given facts and circumstances of the case. The writ petition can be entertained to enforce earlier order of this Court, notwithstanding availability of an efficacious 4 alternative remedy or statutory remedies even for that matter a statutory bar. 15. It is submitted by Mr. Kabir that there are several vacancies of the post of Principal in several schools in the islands. The petitioners ought to have been considered for being accommodated in such schools right from the year 2013. They are wrongfully deprived and the Administration must be directed to absorb them in such schools forthwith. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that all vacancies in the post of Principal have been the subject matter of a recruitment process initiated recently. The writ petitioners having participated and having applied for in such recruitment process must be deemed to have waived all rights in the subject writ petition and the same become infructuous of such participation. There is substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents. 17. Mr.Kabir, learned senior counsel submits that his client has participated in the recruitment process referred to by the counsel for the respondents without prejudice to their rights and contention in the subject writ petition. 18. It appears from the records that vide letter dated 28.06.2019, the petitioners made a representation to the respondents reiterating their rights arising out of orders of this Court particularly dated 29th January, 2013 (supra) which clearly mandated upon the respondents to interview the petitioners against any vacancies that arose. Several vacancies arose from 2019 to 2026. The respondents remained have 5 failed and refused to consider the case of the petitioner. Instead they have issued the current recruitment notice to fill up seven vacancies in the post of Principal in various schools in the islands. This Court is of the view that having regard to the orders passed by the Single and the view of Division Bench of this Court, as regards ineligibility of several persons already appointed as Principals, the instant writ petition has not become infructuous. Mere application against a vacancy during pendency of the writ petition would not attract the principles of waiver and acquiescence. 19. In the above circumstances, this Court directs that without any further procedure of filtration and scrutiny of application, the writ petitioners must be called for interview to the post of Principal in the vacancies already advertised. 20. They shall be awarded marks in the recruitment process based on their educational qualifications and their experience notionally taken from the year 2013. 21. The interview of the petitioners shall be taken up first. The interview of other candidates who applied in the aforesaid recruitment process must be taken up after interview of the petitioners and marks calculated in the recruitment process of the petitioners should be communicated to them first. 22. If the petitioners succeed in the interview process they shall be granted appointments irrespective of higher marks secured by other candidates in the aforesaid recruitment process. 6 23. It is expected that interview of the two petitioners are completed as expeditiously as possible not later than within a period of six weeks from date. 24. It is submitted by Ms. G. Mini, learned counsel for the Administration that one of the petitioners is facing departmental action. The appointment of such person shall be subject to the result of such departmental proceedings. 25. WPA/289/2019 stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 26. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. ( Rajasekhar Mantha, J. )