The Supreme Court of India on 01.02.2019, in Union of India & Ors.  v Md. Samim Azad[1], had allowed the appeal that had been by the Union of India  against the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court’s order .

FACTS:

The respondent being the original petitioner had filed the petition in the Calcutta High Court wherein he had been appointed to the post of the halt contractor and that such contract had ceased to exist   in the year 2010 and ever since there had been no renewal.  The father of the petitioner had petitioner had died in the year 2016. Upon the request of the respondent and because of the medical condition of   the father he had been permitted for selling tickets in the halt station.

An advertisement for the appointment of a contractor had been issued by the appellants through notification wherein the petitioner had also participated and was amongst one of the candidates being shortlisted.

Despite, having participated in the selection process, the respondent was not selected and as such he filed the abovementioned Writ Petition in the High Court of Calcutta upon the ground that he was a continued halt contractor in his father’s place and with regard to the guidelines that had been issued he was entitled to have been given preference in terms of the appointment. The claim of the respondent was rejected by the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court through an order based upon the finding that the contract between Railways and the deceased did not exist on the date of the death of the deceased father.

Being aggrieved, an  intra-Court appeal had been filed in  the High Court and Division Bench of the High that permitted the appeal while  setting aside the order  while directing  the  Railway authorities  for granting  preference to the petitioner with due regards being given to the  terms of clause VI of the Circular  while appointing him to the post of  a  halt contractor .

DECISION HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA:

The Apex Court while allowing the appeals concluded that only because the petitioner had been allowed work in his father’s place due to his medical conditions, that does not give him any right for claiming preference as an heir of the contractor and further when notification had been issued regarding the appointment, the petitioner having participated in the selection process and having not been successful had gone and filed the petition with regard to the appointment.

The Supreme Court of India, further  while setting aside the order of the High Court had committed an error while giving direction  for giving the petitioner preference for appointment   since  the contract between the deceased and the authorities had not been renewed at the time of death of the deceased father  .