The Calcutta High Court allowed a writ petition and directed the Public Service Commission, West Bengal (PSC) to recommend the petitioner’s name for appointment to the post of Krishi Prayukti Sahayak, holding that the midway introduction of qualifying marks in the interview was arbitrary and had already been declared illegal in respect of the same recruitment process.
The Bench of Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Prasenjit Biswas noted that the recruitment advertisement prescribed qualifying marks only for Part II of the written examination and did not stipulate any cut-off for the interview. However, after completion of the selection process, qualifying marks were introduced for the interview, leading to the petitioner’s non-recommendation despite securing higher aggregate marks than the last selected candidate in his category.
The petitioner had secured 81.75 marks in total, whereas the last selected candidate in his Scheduled Caste category had secured 81.50 marks. Nevertheless, the petitioner was denied recommendation on the ground that he did not secure the minimum qualifying marks fixed for the interview (5 marks for SC category candidates).
The Court observed that an identical issue arising out of the same selection process had already been decided in favour of another candidate, Pritam Ghosal. The Tribunal had quashed the introduction of interview cut-off marks as arbitrary and illegal, and the said decision was affirmed by the High Court in earlier proceedings. In view of that binding determination, the Court held there was no scope to re-agitate the legality of the interview cut-off in the present case.
Addressing the State’s argument that the petitioner was a fence-sitter, the Bench rejected the contention, noting that the petitioner had approached the Tribunal even prior to Pritam Ghosal by filing OA No. 741 of 2019. His application remained pending due to the Tribunal’s non-functioning and later vacancy of members. Therefore, no delay, laches, acquiescence, or fence-sitting could be attributed to him.
Relying on settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, the Court reiterated that similarly situated candidates must ordinarily be extended the same relief, particularly in service jurisprudence, unless barred by delay or acquiescence.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the PSC to recommend the petitioner’s name within eight weeks, and further directed the State authorities to complete the appointment process within an additional eight weeks thereafter.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner: Advocate Victor Chatterjee, Advocate Barnamoy Basak, Advocate Shreya Bhattacharjee.
For the State: AGP Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Advocate Somnath Naskar.
For the P.S.C.: Advocate Shraboni Sarkar, Advocate Umme Habiba Khatun.
