13.07.2026. Item No. 28. Court No. 13 ap M.A.T. 2086 of 2024 With I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024 And I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2025 Dr. Uttamkumar Samanta Versus The Union of India & Ors. Dr. Uttamkumar Samanta. …Appellant (in person). Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari, ld. Sr. Advocate, Mr. Samriddhi Nayek. …For the Union of India. Mr. Srinjoy Das, Mr. Aritra Ghosh, Ms. Sneha Das. ..For the respondent nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 8. Re: CAN 2 of 2025 (Condonation of delay) 1. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of about 213 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. Although the explanation offered by the appellant for delay in the application for condonation is not satisfactory, this Court in the interest of justice and given the fact that the appellant is appearing in person, thereby condoned the delay. 3. In view of the above, the application for condonation of delay being CAN 2 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of. 4. There will be no order as to costs. Re: MAT 2086 of 2024 in CAN 1 of 2024 5. Affidavits filed by the parties before this Court today are taken on record. 2 6. The instant intra court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1st March, 2024 as confirmed by an order dated 20th September, 2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.A. 24666 of 2023. 7. The writ petition was filed challenging a recruitment process to the post of Scientist Group-IV at a Laboratory under the control and management of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CISR) under the Ministry of Science & Technology (MOST). 8. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that in an earlier proceeding, challenging some recruitment process in which the petitioner was participated and was not recruited, the respondents have mislead this Court by perpetrating fraud. 9. The Single Bench found that the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research under Ministry of Science and Technology is a notified authority included in the classification list under Rule 154(b) of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993. The Single Bench was, therefore, of the view that the writ petition was not maintainable before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of availability of effective alternative remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. 3 10. This Court finds no reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned judgment. 11. The writ petitioner would next argue that the earlier proceeding with regard to same recruitment process having been entertained by the Single and the Division Benches of this Court, the Single Bench was, therefore, not justified in holding that the writ petition was not maintainable. 12. It appears to this Court the Notification of the Laboratory under the CSIR under the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993 was not brought to the notice of the High Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the earlier writ proceeding. 13. In any event, a Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot enter into the question of fraud or impropriety in a selection process. Those would be the areas of disputed questions of fact. 14. It is equally well-settled that a person, who participates in the recruitment process, cannot turn around and challenge the same merely because he is unsuccessful thereunder. A person has right to participate in the selection process but no vested right to be selected thereunder. The element of subjectivity in recruitment to higher scientific posts cannot be ruled out and is an accepted reality. 4 15. The judgments cited by the appellant appearing in person have been considered by this Court and are found not applicable in the facts of the present case. 16. In the light of the above, even assuming for the sake of argument that this Court could have considered any of the prayers of the petitioner, no relief can be granted to the petitioner before this High Court. The impugned order calls for no interference whatsoever. 17. M.A.T. 2086 of 2024 shall stand dismissed. 18. In view of dismissal of the appeal itself, the connected application being CAN 1 of 2024 shall also stand dismissed. 19. There will be no order as to costs. 20. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)