Back
Calcutta High Court Quashes Museum Keeper Selection For Failing To Follow Proper Recruitment Rules
The has recently invalidated the for the post of Keeper at the in West Bengal. In a judgment delivered by Justice Krishna Rao, the Court set aside the appointment of the selected candidate, ruling that the () failed to adhere to both the terms of their recruitment advertisement and the Rules of Procedure, .
A Deficient Selection Process
The dispute arose following Advertisement No. 12/, which invited applications for a single vacancy. While 50 candidates applied, the Commission narrowed the list to 39 for an interview process. Unsuccessful candidates challenged the selection, alleging a lack of , the absence of an evaluation matrix, and the failure to provide a ranked merit list.
The petitioners contended that while they possessed superior academic qualifications, including Ph.D. degrees, their professional experience was inadequately weighed. The Commission, however, defended its actions, asserting that the recruitment was conducted by a three-member interview board and that the selections were based on professional assessment conducted by that body.
Legal Analysis: The Bench’s Scrutiny
Upon reviewing the original records, the High Court identified significant procedural lapses. The Court examined whether the Commission followed the prescribed rules for scoring candidates. Justice Rao clarified the mandate of , noting that it requires the interview panel to either reach a unanimous decision or, in the absence of one, to mathematically average individual marks.
The Court found that there was a complete absence of documentation detailing how the selection board reached its decisions. The respondents' claim of "" was rejected, as the court found no contemporaneous records demonstrating that such deliberations occurred or how they influenced the final outcome. Furthermore, the Commission failed to conduct a preliminary screening test or establish clear, objective shortlisting criteria as permitted by the advertisement, which left the process appearing opaque and .
Key Observations
Highlighting the severity of these failures, Justice Rao recorded:
"This Court finds that the Public Service Commission has not followed the terms and conditions of the advertisement, Rules of Procedure, and the Board members have not conducted the interview in fair manner."
"Rule 5(e) is not for awarding marks by the members of Interview Board on their deliberation on the performance of the interviewees."
"In the present case, there is nothing on record how the members have come to such decision and what is the basis of the said decision."
Decision and Outlook
The High Court rejected the preliminary objection regarding the of the petition, noting that the was non-functional at the time. Consequently, the Court quashed both the and the subsequent appointment.
The has been directed to initiate a fresh selection process immediately. To mitigate the hardship caused by the delay, the Court ordered that the Commission should grant to previous applicants who may now be overage, provided they formally request such relief. This ruling reaffirms the strict standard of required from constitutional bodies when managing public employment opportunities.
