CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2004) 01 PAT CK 0022

Anuj Kumar Roy vs The Union of India (UOI) and Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 6 January 2004 · Citation: (2004) 2 PLJR 405

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J · Shashank Kr. Singh, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.W.J.C. No. 25 of 2004

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 355 words
1.

Anuj Kumar Roy is an advocate. It is stated that his father was driver with the North Frontier Railway. He died on 2.8.1999. After the death of his father Anuj Kumar Roy thought it would be bette to leave the legal profession and apply for a job on compassionate appointment with the Indian Railways. The Railway administration was not averse to considering his application and in accordance with the regulations tested him and in accordance with the test did provide him with an employment as a junior clerk on 9.1.2000. Not satisfied the newly recruited Anuj Kumar Roy engaged the Railway administration in a controversy that he had not been given a job commensurate with his qualifications. The Railways did not hesitate to take up a defence before the Central Administrative Tribunal that notwithstanding the qualification, which he possessed as a Graduate, a Law Graduate or a lawyer, the efficiency shown in the test barely passed him and was quite inconsistent with the higher qualification possessed by him.

2.

Anuj Kumar Roy is lucky that the railway administration did. not chase up this matter to its logical conclusion to find out whether this person who did not have efficiency to match his qualification did have the qualification at all? This Court leaves this question unanswered.

3.

An odious comparison was drawn by Anuj Kumar Roy that others have been given a better employment at the time of their entry. The railway administration put up a defence that these are not matters of compassionate appointment and further no details have been provided and further these persons were tested with better efficiency in their departmental test to receive their appointments.

4.

Anuj Kumar Roy apparently has not seen troubled times nor upheavel in a State in which there is rampant unemployment. One can hardly dictate terms to a person who provides a job and more so a government job and that also a Central Government job. There is no compulsion with Anuj Kumar Roy to retain the job which the Railways has provided, if he desires to revert to the legal profession he may.

5.

Dismissed.