Md. Jamal Ahmad vs West Bengal Transport Corporation Limited And Ors.

The matter has a long chequered history. The petitioner’s father died in harness on 7th October, 2001 while working in Calcutta Tramways

Company (1978) Limited (hereinafter referred to as “CTCâ€) which is now known as the West Bengal Transport Corporation Limited (WBTC).

The petitioner’s mother had applied to CTC for giving  compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The said application was kept pending

which compelled the petitioner to approach this Court by filing a writ petition being WP 19929(w) of 2007 which was disposed of by an order dated

12th February, 2010 directing the State of West Bengal to communicate the decision with regard to the CTC within a period of eight weeks from the

date of communication of the said order with a copy thereof to the petitioner no.2 being the petitioner in the instant writ petition. The petitioner’s

application was processed to certain extent and the petitioner was directed to appear in the medical examination. Since nothing happened thereafter in

respect of his appointment, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP No.614 of 2012. This writ petition was

disposed of on 18th September, 2012 by directing the respondents to communicate their decision to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from

the date of communication of the said order. The petitioner was thereafter engaged in CTC as a trainee conductor in terms of an order dated 20th

January, 2014 passed in the writ petition being WP No.1036 of 2013 also filed by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter made a representation on

12th September, 2016 for regularising his service. This representation was directed to be considered by the Managing Director of CTC by an order

dated 28th November, 2016 passed in a writ petition being WP No.981 of 2016 also filed by the writ petitioner. The petitioner’s representation

dated 12th September, 2016 was ultimately disposed of by an order dated 14th February, 2017 by the Managing Director, WBTC, being the

respondent no.2 in the instant writ petition by rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for regularisation. This order of 14th February, 2017 was challenged

by the petitioner by filing a writ petition being WP No.246 of 2017. By an order dated 19th June, 2019, the said writ petition being WP No.246 of 2017

was disposed of. The operative portion of the said order is set out hereunder:

“It is settled law that the impugned order has to be tested on the face of it and grounds cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons by way of

affidavit to support the same.

In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is, accordingly, set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Managing

Director of the West Bengal Transport Corporation to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner for regularization afresh, in accordance with law, after

giving him an opportunity of hearing within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order. The said respondent shall

pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner within a fortnight thereafter.â€​

It will also appear from the said order that this Court deprecated the attempt made on behalf of the respondents to add and supplement grounds which

were not mentioned in the order dated 14th February, 2017. The Managing Director of WBTC being the respondent no.2 on remand has disposed of

the petitioner’s representation dated 12th September, 2016 by an order dated 5th August, 2019. This order is the subject matter of challenge in the

instant writ petition, which was affirmed on 9th October, 2020 and filed on 4th January, 2021. It appears from the said order that a report as to the

performance of the petitioner was obtained by the respondent no.2 while deciding the petitioner’s representation. This fact is reflected from the

order dated 5th August, 2019. On a query from Court the petitioner says that no copy of the report considered by the respondent no.2 while passing

his order dated 5th August, 2019 was made available to the petitioner either before the final hearing or at any stage. The petitioner also had no

opportunity to contradict or controvert the said report.

The matter is adjourned till 26th August, 2021 when the Advocate representing the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 shall produce the report as regards the

petitioner’s performance which is reflected in the order dated 5th August, 2019 and informed this Court whether such report was given to the

petitioner prior to the hearing which culminated into the order dated 5th August, 2019.