Ct. No.4 D/L-4 05.03.2025 (Naba) W.P.C.T. 42 of 2025 Naushad Hussain Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Ujjal Ray, Mr. Arpa Chakraborty, Ms. Manishikha Mondal ...for the Petitioner Mr. Bhudeb Chatterjee, Mr. Sushil Kr. Mishra ...for the Union of India 1. The petitioner participated in a recruitment process for provisional appointment of Investigator, Grade-II. Having gone through the selection process, he was not found fit for appointment. The petitioner in the circumstances approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the C.A.T.) seeking the following relief: “(a) An order do issue directing the concerned respondent authorities to forthwith give appointment to the applicant for the post of Investigator Grade-II after taking into account of the fact, service rendered by him for the same post wherein his performance was reckoned as “Excellent”/ “Outstanding”. (b) An order do issue directing the respondent authorities to reevaluate and/or reassess the marks given in the Interview so held on 28.03.2016, published vide 2 Notice No. 5/2 (CN-07)/2015-Rectt. Dated 06.05.2016/20.06.2016 for the post of Investigator Grade – II with regard to the applicant herein. (c) An order do issue directing the concerned respondent authorities to transmit all the records before this Hon’ble Tribunal in ends of justice. (d) Any other appropriate order/orders direction/directions as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to protect the right of the applicant.” 2. The facts as apparent from the application filed before the C.A.T. is that pursuant to the initial stage of the recruitment process, the petitioner was short-listed for being interviewed and was also subjected to an interview. Based on the qualifications claimed by the candidates including the petitioner, their experience and performance at the interview, the recruitment authority (respondents) compiled a list of selected candidates. Out of 33 (thirty three) candidates who had been short-listed for interview, only 16 had participated in the interview including the petitioner. Two other candidates have secured the 1st and 2nd position in the select list. 3 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the C.A.T. has not considered the claim of the petitioner in the correct perspective. The petitioner was having experience which is backed by the certificates, photocopies of which he has enclosed with the O.A. 4. Upon going through the Original Application being O.A. No.1026 of 2016, we find that 03 (three) certificates have been enclosed showing that he has intermittently worked on contractual basis as an Investigator in the respondent organisation. The O.A., however, does not disclose that the other two who have been selected were in any way inferior on any parameter, including experience. The other two persons who were placed at 1st and 2nd position have not been impleaded as a party in the O.A. though petitioner has sought relief which is going to adversely affect the interest of the two persons who have been published in the list of selected candidates at serial 1 and 2. 5. These facts and circumstances, as noted above, are not in dispute as it is apparent from the pleadings made in the O.A. itself. 6. The petitioner in our opinion has not made out any case so as to grant the relief prayed by him. 4 7. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order dated 13.03.2024 of the C.A.T. in dismissing the Original Application being O.A. No.1026 of 2016. 8. The Writ Petition is dismissed. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)