IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WP.CT/16/2026 Union of India and others Vs. Shri. Pratap Chakroborthy Mr. Rakesh Kumar … for the Administration Ms. Dipaniwta Heldar … for the UOI Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar … for the respondent With WP.CT/8/2025 IA No. CAN/1/2026 Shri. Pratap Chakroborthy Vs Union of India and others Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar … for the petitioner Ms. Dipaniwta Heldar … for the UOI Mr. Rakesh Kumar … for the Administration July 31, 2026 [SR] Item No.3 & 4 1. Despite earlier notice the private respondent Sanju Chakraborty was not represented earlier or even today. 2. OA/351/1528/2023 was filed by the writ petitioner/Pratap Chakroborthy before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging non selection in the recruitment process inter alia for one post of Post Graduate Teacher in Bengali in Government Schools under the Education Department of the Administration. 2 3. At the time of admission of the proceedings before the Tribunal, it was ordered that any selection made by the respondents therein would have to abide by the result of the proceedings. The said order was extended from time to time. 4. The said OA/351/1528/2023 was disposed of by the order dated 21st February, 2025. In the said order, the entitlement of the petitioner to appointment to such post was upheld. It was held that the applicant was entitled to age relaxation under two circulars - one dated 19th September, 2011 by the Administration and one dated 20th October, 2022 issued by the Lieutenant Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Islands. However, in the final directions at para 11 of the judgment, the Tribunal only directed that the petitioner should be accommodated in an available vacant post. The said order been challenged in the subject writ petition. 5. At the time of admission of the present writ petition, on 17th March, 2025 a Coordinate Bench directed that, if the petitioner was found having qualified on the basis of the circulars on 19th September, 2011 and 20th October, 2022 issued by the Administration, in connection with relaxation of age, the respondent Union would, if necessary, have to create a post to accommodate the writ petitioner. Affidavits were called for and filed by the respondents herein. 6. The petitioner and another candidate were found over aged as opposed to other candidates. Hence the marks of the petitioner and other persons were not disclosed. The 3 respondents were directed by a Coordinate Bench to evaluate the petitioner in accordance with law and award marks to him. 7. On 24.02.2026, a Coordinate Bench found that the marks obtained by the petitioner were higher than one Sanju Chakraborty, the person who was appointed to the post. The Court decided to issue notice on the appointed candidate before proceeding to deal with the Tribunal’s order of age relaxation of the writ petitioner. 8. In the meanwhile, the Union filed WPCT/16/2026 also challenging impugned order dated 24th February, 2025. The Union’s writ petition was occasioned because it was aggrieved that the Tribunal found that the writ petitioner Pratap Chakroborthy was entitled 0.1 marks per month for the part time service of the petitioner with Administration towards experience whereas the Tribunal found that the petitioner was entitled 0.2 marks. 9. On 27.04.2026, a Coordinate Bench recorded that the Tribunal had observed that all issues in favour of the writ petitioner Pratap Chakroborthy and yet only directed consideration of his case for his appointment after granting relaxation of age. No final pronouncement was however made by the Coordinate Bench in respect of the impugned order. 10. From the tenor of the orders indicated above, Coordinate Benches appears to have accepted the findings of the Tribunal that the petitioner was entitled to appropriate age relaxation in terms of the aforesaid two circulars dated 19.09.2011 and 20.10.2022. 4 11. The Tribunal had found that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of age relaxation under both circulars dated 19th September, 2011 and 20th October, 2022 thereby qualifying the petitioner in the selection process despite the fact that he was 36 years of age. The relaxation in the circular dated 19th September, 2011 was for Contract teachers, Daily Wage Employees and those who were appointed under the Sarva Siksha Abhayan. It was specified that such persons were all entitled to participate in the recruitment process with the age relaxation provided that at inception of their engagement with the Administration, they were within age limit. It was further stipulated that their experience in non-technical post in the above category with the Administration, would be counted towards experience in recruitment to permanent posts with the Administration. The relaxation of two years age in the circular dated 20.10.2022 was allowed by the Lieutenant Governor in view of the COVID pandemic. 12. This Court is in agreement with the views of the Tribunal as regard to the entitlement of the petitioner’s age relaxation under both circulars. The petitioner being part time employee would not be barred in view of another circular dated 15.12.2023 issued by the Administration. It provided that part time employees would be treated at par with other non permanent employee. The petitioner was entitled to and awarded the marks as indicated by the respondents in the affidavit of compliance affirmed on 23rd February, 2026 at paragraph 22 sub clause (b). The petitioner under the OBC 5 category had obtained 67.46 marks, 7 marks over and above the appointed candidate Sanju Chakraborty, who secured 60.36 marks. 13. It was the petitioner who was therefore lawfully entitled to be appointed to the post of PGT in Bengali in the said recruitment process. The appointment of Sanju Chakraborty was therefore incorrect. 14. The retrenchment and/or cancellation of the appointment of Sanju Chakraborty in paragraph 4 of the order of Coordinate Bench dated 27.04.2026, was passed in the aforesaid context. 15. What therefore transpires from all the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as this Court is that the petitioner was lawfully entitled to be appointed to the post of Post Graduate Teacher in Bengali under the subject recruitment process and was deprived. The appointment of Sanju Chakraborty who secured 7 marks lesser than the petitioner is ex facie illegal. 16. The Coordinate Bench, however, with the view to protect Sanju Chakraborty and his career, had explored the possibility as to whether there was any other vacancy still available in the direct recruitment category. A second affidavit-of-compliance of the respondent filed and affirmed in May, 2026 before this Court, a copy whereof has been obtained from the learned counsel for the parties and kept with the record. There appears to be one vacancy in the direct recruitment category which the Administration has proposed to fill up by a fresh recruitment process. The said recruitment process was initiated on 16th July, 2026. 6 17. This Court finds that the fresh recruitment process would have the effect of actually depriving the writ petitioner herein Pratap Chakroborthy from a lawful appointment to the post of Post Graduate Teacher in Bengali, in terms of the impugned order. Such recruitment process dated 16th July, 2026 shall therefore remain stayed sine die. 18. The order of the tribunal dated 21.02.2025 is upheld even to the extent of the marks, towards experience, awarded to Pratap Chakroborthy in the said recruitment process i.e. 0.2 marks. 19. It is, therefore, ordered that the petitioner would be deemed to have been appointed against the recruitment process that was subject matter of OA/351/1528/2023, effective from the date on which Sanju Chakraborty was appointed in the first place i.e 29th January, 2024. The writ petitioner Pratap Chakroborthy would not be entitled to any back wages or arrears of salary of emoluments. His length of service will however be considered notionally from 29th January, 2024 till the date, he actually joins the post and continue till his superannuation. 20. Sanju Chakraborty shall be deemed to have been appointed in the single vacancy that was proposed to be filed up by the respondents in terms of the recruitment process advertised on 16th July, 2026. 21. No recovery shall be made from the salary and emoluments already paid to Sanju Chakraborty. The length of service of Sanju Chakraborty shall however be counted afresh 7 from 16th July, 2026 till the date of his superannuation and be counted thereafter. 22. Sanju Chakraborty as well as Pratap Chakroborthy shall be entitled to the scale of pay as currently applicable to the post of Post Graduate Teacher in Bengali. Pratap Chakroborthy shall however be entitled to notional increments and any revisions in pay and emoluments from 29th January, 2024 till date. His salary and emoluments and pay scale shall be prepared factoring him all such increments, revision of salary, pay and allowances. 23. With the aforesaid directions the instant writ petitions being WP.CT/16/2026 and WP.CT/8/2025 shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 24. Partap Chakroborthy shall be appointed forthwith by the respondents and shall be entitled to join his post within seven days of date of issuance of such letter of appointment, subject to his being found eligible on other criteria. 25. In view of the above CAN/1/2026 shall also stands disposed of. 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.) (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)