1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WP.CT/25/2025 Shri Jeeban Roy Vs. The Union of India and Ors. Mr. Rajinder Singh Mr. Tapan Kumar Das Mr. D.Mallick … for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Kumar … for the respondents August 5, 2026 [SR] Item No.4 1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 29.01.2025 passed in OA/24/2016 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Kolkata Bench. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has held that a Part Time employee is not entitled to seek regularisation as he is not working against sanctioned post and there cannot be any permanent continuation of part time employee. 2. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of State of Maharashtra and another vs. S.Bhonde and others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 751 and an unreported decision of the Union of India and others vs. Ilmo Devi and others being Civil Appeal No.5689-5600 of 2001. 3. The facts of the case is briefly stated that the petitioner is 100% blind. He was engaged as part-time Craft Instructor in Music from the year 2002 – 2012 by the Administration and between 2012 to 2013, he was a part time attender. 4. The petitioner sought regular appointment in the post of Craft Instructor Music and file OA/149/2005 that was disposed 2 of on 17.05.2007. The respondents were directed to consider the age of the applicant sympathetically and relax the rules and continue to appointment him as part-time Craft Instructor in Music. The respondents were also directed to permit the petitioner to acquire any qualification to consider his case for appointment against the vacancy. Accordingly, the respondents continued to engage the petitioner until 05.03.2013. 5. By a order dated 10.07.2014, the Commissioner of Disability recommended the petitioner’s case for appointment as Craft Instructor in Music. 6. Upon the respondent’s failing to appoint him as such, he filed a second OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal being OA/18/2015. The application was disposed of vide order dated 08.07.2015 directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner as per the recommendation of the Commissioner of Disabilities. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner was engaged as part-time Craft Instructor in December, 2015 until the summer vacation of the year 2016. 8. The writ petitioner did not physically join the post of part-time Craft Instructor (Music) offered to him in 2015. He chose to send a letter of joining by way of speed post. The same cannot be constituted a joining report in the eye of law. 9. The respondents then published a notice of recruitment dated 20.04.2015 for permanent appointment to the post of Craft Instructor in Music. The petitioner applied but was found ineligible for want of proper qualification. 10. The petitioner thereafter filed the instant OA/24/2026 that was disposed of by the impugned order dated 29.01.2025. 3 In the said OA, the petitioner prayed for an order directing the respondent authorities to consider him for permanent appointment in the post of Craft Instructor (Music) relaxing his academic qualification and age, if any. 11. The Tribunal appears to have considered the case of the petitioner in the light of the claim for permanent absorption of part time employee. Applying the decisions in case of Ilmo Devi (supra), State of Karnataka vs. Union of India reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and S. Bhonde (supra) it was held that a part time employee cannot seek regularization of his appointment. 12. This Court finds that there is a circular dated 19.09.2011 of the respondents wherein the part time, adhoc and temporary employees can apply against the advertisement for permanent absorption. Their experience in the part time, adhoc or temporary posts is required to be counted towards the experience requirement in the advertised post including age relaxation. The said circular was not placed before the Tribunal and the findings of the Tribunal on this score therefore appears to be erroneous. 13. However, this Court notices that the respondent- Administration and the earlier decisions of the CAT in the application filed by the petitioner including Commissioner of Disabilities have committed error in applying the decision of the Supreme Court in case of State of Bihar vs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.Mahasangh reported in (2005) 9 SCC 129. In the said decision at paragraph 73 sub clause 2, it was held that the report of S.C.Agarwal Committee was accepted and an objections filed thereto were rejected. 4 14. It appears from the report of the Aggrawal Committee, set out in OA 112 of 2005 in Ram Prakash Tiwari vs. Union of India and others being judgment dated 24th May 2007 that the degree of Sangeet Praveen and Diploma of Sangeet Prabhakar were treated to equivalent to Post Graduate qualification and the degree of Sangeet Prabhakar and Diploma of Sangeet Visharad were to be treated as graduate qualification in Music. 15. The institution from which the degrees were to be obtained are recognized by the Aggarwal Committee were from the Prayag Sangeet Samity Academy of Music Allahabad. The Aggarwal Committee has not referred to any degrees from Sangeet Academy at Chandigarh. The petitioner appears to have undergone, one year certificate course and his other certificates of Diplomas from the Sangeet Academy at Chandigarh which finds no mention in the Aggarwal Committee report. 16. In the light of the above and in the fact that the petitioner has not even chosen to join the part time post offered to him in 2015, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 17. WP.CT/25/2025 shall therefore stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 18. Interim order if any shall stands vacated. 19. 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. ) ( Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)