Employment opportunities are limited nowadays due to limited number of vacancies: Calcutta High Court 

Employment opportunities are limited nowadays due to limited number of vacancies: Calcutta High Court 

The Calcutta High Court stated that the employment opportunities are limited nowadays due to the limited number of vacancies.

Court Observation 

A single judge bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy observed that the offence and punishment for wrongful restraint, the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt are trivial in nature. 

The court stated that the resultant effect of the charges ultimately culminate into a punishment for criminal intimidation, at best threat be to cause, inter alia, grievous hurt. 

The bench opined that the principle charges were under Sections 341 and 323 of IPC which were of trivial in nature without having any effect on the moral turpitude.

“The nature of the charges being petty and trivial and after withdrawal of the same by the de facto complainant, the moral turpitude of the petitioner could not be questioned in the facts of the case.”


On February 23, 2011 an employment notice was published by the third respondent inviting application from the public at large for both male and female candidates for filling up the Post of Constables in all the Zonal Railways all over the country. 

Pursuant to and in terms of the employment notice the petitioner in March 2011 applied thereunder for the Post of Constable. A charge-sheet was submitted by the Chakda Police Station before the Magistrate, Kalyani, District Nadia under Section 341, 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and his family members.


Advocate Achin Kumar Majumder, appearing for the writ petitioner, submitted that, out of a bona fide mistake the petitioner did not disclose the initiation and pendency of the criminal case in the attestation form which was merely an omission.

He contended that a neighbour Ranjit Biswas of the petitioner, lodged a false complaint against all the family members of the petitioner, including the petitioner out of jealousy. 

Advocate Sourav Mondal, appearing for the respondents, contended that the very suppression of the criminal case being pending against the petitioner while filling up the attestation form amounted to furnishing false declaration and misrepresentation.

The attestation form specifically provided for giving a declaration as to the criminal antecedent of the candidate. 


The court said that the employment opportunity is a scarce commodity nowadays being circumscribed within a limited number of vacancies.

Abench added that it is true that this may not suffice to invoke sympathy for grant of relief where the credential of a candidate raises any question regarding its suitability, irrespective of eligibility.

It was stated by the court that every individual deserves an opportunity to improve itself, learn from the past and move ahead in life for self improvement. 

The court held that the order of termination/discharge from service and the consequential order passed by the Respondent should be and are liable to be set aside and/or quashed.

The court directed the respondents to reinstate the writ petitioner in service on the Post for Constable at the stage from where he was dismissed/discharged from his employment forwithwith and positively within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the judgment and order, strictly in accordance with law.

Case title: Sri Sukdeb Mandal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: W.P.A. 28149 of 2015

Click here to read the Order/Judgment 

JurisHour is the fastest online portal for Indian legal news.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *