Question of Law: Whether the High Court was justified in not cancelling illegal appointments of certain candidates.

Background Facts: From 03.11.2011- 14.12.2011, Petitioners applied for Group D post (Substitutes) in the Railways before the General Manager of the Chittaranjan Locomotive Works/CLW. [The CLW organization come under Ministry of Railways. The service related matters concerning CLW like vacancy, assessment, recruitment, appointment, etc. are regulated by the Indian Railways Establishment Court, Indian Railways Establishment Manual/IREM and other such disciplinary rules and instructions. The post in CLW are Central civil posts. As per IREM, there are posts for Substitutes, those persons who are engaged in Indian Railway Establishment on regular scales of pay and allowances applicable to posts against which they are employed. These posts fall vacant on account of Railway servant being on leave or due to non-availability od permanent or temporary staff and which cannot be kept vacant. These substitutes are appointed owing to high number of absentees, or the leave reserve may become inadequate or ineffective as in the case of heavy sickness, etc., thus, when only it becomes absolutely necessary to engage substitutes even in vacancies of short duration. A proper procedure for engagement of substitutes has been provided and also for the same a panel of suitable candidates has to be maintained. The procedure for the same has been mentioned in Railway Boards circular of 2000, wherein they are to be engaged with proper advertisement and declaration for the same.] The petitioners were not considered for the same. In 2012, the respondent no. 1-4 recruited substitutes in Group D post without any advertisement and also without following normal norms of service law, but none of the petitioners were appointed. The petitioners allege that certain substitutes were appointed through back door on basis of huge money being paid. Further, petitioners time and again tried to gather information through RTI about the candidates selected n Group D, their procedure of selection, etc. but no proper answers were supplied. They also made 2 representations before the Authorities but to no avail. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal/CAT, Calcutta, which was dismissed observing that the issue involved is in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. (Pg. 92-95) Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a writ petition before the High Court. Order of the High Court of Calcutta dated 08.03.2013 [Impugned Order] Vide the order, the learned court allowed the same by directing the matter back to railway authorities to decide the representations made by the petitioners within 6 weeks. (Pg. 1-3) Hence, the special leave petition by the petitioner. Leeza Grover

Manoj Kumar Mondal & Ors. (Petitioners) Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Respondents) Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19297/2013