August 5, 2026 Sl. No. 6-7 Court No.1 s.biswas WPCT 101 of 2026 Union of India and others Vs. Biman Banerjee WITH WPCT 105 of 2026 Ajay Kumar Sinha and others Vs. Biman Banerjee Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arijit Majumdar Mr. Aniruddha Tewari Ms. Shreyashi Sarkar ... for the petitioners/Union of India Mr. Mrinal Kanti Bandopadhyay Ms. Nargish Parveen ... for the respondent The first writ petition being WPCT 101 of 2026 has been preferred by the Union of India and its functionaries challenging an order dated 30th July, 2024 passed by the learned Tribunal in the original application (in short OA) being OA 35 of 2019 and the second writ petition being WPCT 105 of 2026 has been preferred challenging an order dated 7th April, 2026 passed by the learned Tribunal in a contempt application being CP 43 of 2025 filed in connection with OA 35/2019. The case has a checkered history. The original applicant, namely, Biman Banerjee (in short, Biman), is a National Apprenticeship Certificate holder, having 2 received Apprentice training under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961. He passed All India Apprentice Examination through Government of India Press, Santaragachi and stood registered in the Employment Exchange. Some candidates from the Apprenticeship list were recruited but Biman was not considered in the selection process which commenced vide employment notice dated 17th/23rd November, 2007 due to an alleged economic ban on direct recruitment and consequently on the ground of age. Aggrieved thereby, Biman and others including one Shyamal Hazra filed an OA being OA 439 of 2013. In the said OA reliance was placed upon a decision dated 5th December, 2007 passed in OA 969 of 2007 which was heard analogously along with three other OAs preferred by applicants who underwent Apprentice training. The grievance of the said applicants therein was that in the employment notice dated 17th/23rd November, 2007 the minimum qualification was increased from 8th standard to matriculation with age relaxation to 35 years. In the said order it was inter alia observed that in the event age bar would come in the way, the same would be relaxed to the maximum two years and six months. In the said conspectus, the OA 439 of 2013 was disposed of by an order dated 17th May, 2013 granting liberty to Biman to file a comprehensive representation and with a further direction upon the respondents therein to consider the 3 same. The competent authority thereafter passed an order dated 14th September, 2018, observing inter alia that even after getting age relaxation of 2½ years, Biman has crossed the maximum age limit as on 17th August, 2018 and his candidature cannot be considered for the post of Assistant Binder. In the former order passed in respect of Shyamal Hazra, the cut-off date was specified to be 31st October, 2013 and in the latter order passed in respect of Shyamal Hazra & 21 others, the cut-off date was specified to be 17th August, 2018 without any reason whatsoever. Aggrieved by the orders, Biman again approached the learned Tribunal by preferring OA 35 of 2019, which was disposed of by the order impugned in the present writ petition observing inter alia that Biman ‘ought to have been considered to be eligible in the post of Assistant Binder’ and the OA was allowed subject to verification of all relevant document submitted by Biman. By the said order the respondents were also directed to complete verification of documents within a period of three months. As the said order was not complied with, Biman was constrained to prefer a contempt application in which, the alleged contemnor placed a compliance report. Upon considering the same, the learned Tribunal passed an order on 7th April, 2026, directing issuance of bailable warrant for arrest of the alleged contemnor. 4 Mr. Tewari, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the selection process which was initiated by the advertisement dated 17th/23rd November, 2007, was not proceeded with as would be explicit from the memo dated 3rd April, 2008 issued by the Additional Director (PTG) wherein it was inter alia observed that consequent upon the direction of Ministry of Urban Development dated 3rd April, 2008 it has been decided that the process of recruitment/filling up of the vacant post in various Government of India presses may be suspended forthwith and the recruitment process be stopped with immediate effect. Such fact would also be evident from the averments made by Biman in the OA particularly in paragraph 4.9 and 4.24, wherein Biman himself stated that no action has been taken by the authority concerned regarding recruitment process which was banned/suspended from 5th December, 2007 till date. Mr. Tewari further contends that in the concerned recruitment process the posts advertised were not filled up by the authorities. Some of the posts have already been abolished by the competent authority. As the entire recruitment process has thus been abandoned, question of grant of appointment does not occasion. The learned Tribunal erroneously arrived at a finding that Biman ought to have been considered to be eligible 5 for appointment in the post of Assistant Binder subject to verification of the documents submitted. Drawing the attention of this Court to the compliance report filed before the learned Tribunal, Mr. Tewari argues that in the said report it was categorically observed that ‘no recruitment has been made to the post of Assistant Binder in erstwhile GIP, Santragachi, Howrah against the notification for recruitment referred to by the applicants in their OAs due to suspension of recruitment process at the time vide Directorate of Printing’s OM No.23/1/2008-A.I. dated 03.04.2008 on the orders of PSP Division, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs’. It was further observed that ‘further, the erstwhile GIP, Santragachi was merged with GIP, Temple Street, Kolkata on 14.09.2018 following Union Cabinet’s decision dated 20.09.2017. However, even post-merger no recruitment for the post of Assistant Binder has been made in GIP, Temple Street, Kolkata till date’. The learned Tribunal while considering the contempt application, however, did not appreciate such admitted facts and erroneously initiated action under the CAT (Contempt of Courts) Rules, 1992. To fortify such submission as advanced, Mr. Tewari also prayed for leave to file supplementary affidavit to bring on record further documents from which it would be explicit that the recruitment process had already 6 been abandoned and not a single person pursuant to the said advertisement had been appointed. Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned counsel for Biman denies and disputes such contention of Mr. Tewari and submits that the proceedings had continued before the learned Tribunal for more than a decade. In the said proceedings, no document was produced to establish the allegation that the entire recruitment process was stopped due to ban imposed by the competent authority. On the contrary, Biman himself produced documents which would reveal that the ban was subsequently lifted. In spite of such lifting of ban, consequential steps were not by the petitioners to consider the applicant’s claim. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed upon an office memorandum dated 8th May, 2013 and its annexure. A perusal of the said document would clearly reveal that the ‘Ministry of Urban Development has since taken a decision to lift suspension on direct recruitment imposed on 2.4.2008 on the posts of Govt. of India Presses including Govt. of India Presses in Temple Street, Kolkata and Santragachi, Howrah. Further action on filling up the posts will be taken by Dte. of Printing’. Answering our query as to whether any person who had applied in the concerned recruitment process had been given appointment, Mr. Bandopadhyay has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in 7 paragraph 4.20 of the O.A. wherein it had been categorically stated that 4 candidates, namely, Soma Dey, Manoj Mungy, Samir Manna and Bijoy Bishal Karma were respectively appointed as Nurse, Ward Boy, Farash and Pharmacists. Therefore, it is crystal clear that aforesaid notification/selection process dated 17-23rd November, 2007 still in force and hence the case of the present applicant should have been considered as per aforesaid notification dated 17-23rd November, 2007, not as per age as calculated by the Administration on 31st October, 2013 in the first speaking order dated 24th July, 2014 and thereafter as on 17th August, 2018 as per second speaking order dated 14th September, 2018. In reply, the petitioners herein in paragraph 21 of the reply only stated that ‘it is the speaking order dated 24th July, 2014 passed by the respondent authority in compliance with O.A. No.439 of 2013 which was issued in the year 2014 and now any criticism and discussion thereupon is absolutely unwarranted’. Mr. Bandopadhyay vehemently opposes the prayer of Mr. Tewari to bring on record further documents before this Court by filing any supplementary affidavit arguing that in the entire proceedings which had continued for more than a decade the petitioners herein had never produced any additional documents to establish their contention that the recruitment process was permanently suspended. In view thereof, question of 8 grant of any opportunity to the respondents to bring further documents on record does not occasion. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. In the order 14th September, 2018 passed by the competent authority it had been observed inter alia that though the applicants are entitled to get age relaxation for a period of 2½ years, the applicant has crossed the maximum age limit as on 17th August, 2018. The said cut-off date as stated to be 17th August, 2018 is not supported by any document whatsoever and in fact Mr. Tewari has also failed to place any material on record to establish that the cut-off date was 17th August, 2018. The documents at page nos.83 and 84 were brought on record by Biman. The document at page 84 clearly reveals that the Ministry of Urban Development had taken a decision to lift suspension on direct recruitment imposed on 2nd April, 2008 on the posts of Government of India Presses including Government of India Presses in Temple Street, Kolkata and Santragachi, Howrah. The authenticity of the said document could not be disputed by the petitioners herein. In the speaking order dated 14.09.2018, it has been only observed in one paragraph that ‘question of relaxation of age considering the duration of economic ban and educational qualification so increased has been discussed’. Save and except such 9 statement there is no discussion to the effect that all the recruitment process was suspended indefinitely since the year 2007. There is also no reference to the document dated 3rd April, 2008 upon which reliance has been placed by Mr. Tewari. The only ground on which Biman’s claim has been rejected is that he had crossed the maximum age limit as on 17th August, 2018. The said date could not have been treated as the cut-off date. It is fairly well settled that the legality or otherwise of an order passed by a statutory authority must be judged on the face thereof, as the reasons contained therein cannot be supplemented by an affidavit. Thus, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that no recruitment has been made against the employment notification dated 17th-27th November, 2007 is not acceptable to this Court since no such ground was taken in the reply filed by the petitioners in response to paragraph 4.20 of the OA and moreso when from the unreported order passed in the case of Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi it appears that appointments were given in the recruitment process initiated by an advertisement published in the month of November, 2007 and posts of Assistant Binder were filled up at Government of India Press, Faridabad. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons and if the 10 vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates and no discrimination can be permitted. The State as the model employer has no licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. In the compliance report filed on behalf of the alleged contemners before the learned Tribunal, it has been categorically observed that ‘the documents of the abovenamed applicants have been verified as per the Hon’ble CAT’s order’. Upon arriving at such finding, the petitioners cannot deny appointment and as such the learned Tribunal rightly interfered in the contemt proceedings. An appellate power interferes not when the order appealed is not right but when it is clearly wrong. The scope of judicial review is very narrow and limited and such jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the Court dictates. The impugned orders do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or any substantial failure of justice or any manifest injustice warranting interference of this Court. Applying such proposition of law to the facts of the case, we are unable to grant relief as prayed for by the petitioners moreso when the learned the learned Single 11 Judge, upon dealing with all the factual issues arrived at specific findings. For the reasons discussed above, the writ petitions being WPCT 101 of 2026 and WPCT 105 of 2026 are dismissed. There shall be however no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)