Recruiting authorities have the discretion to shortlist candidates for a limited number of vacancies on a rational and reasonable basis, even if such a procedure is not provided for in the existing recruitment rules.

( 1 ) THE judgment of the Court was as follows : the petitioner was asked to appear at an interview for selection to the post of Constable in the Calcutta Police and pursuant to the interview letter dated 17th January, 1994 the petitioner appeared before the Selection Board on 6th April, 1994 for interview, which according to him was to be conducted on the basis of the Calcutta Police Regulations, 1968.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was found fit and suitable in physical measurement and also successfully completed the physical tests, such as, hundred metres and four hundred metres run and fifteen feet long jump. Despite having succeded at the aforesaid stages, the petitioner was ultimately informed that he had failed to qualify in the viva-voce test.

( 3 ) SINCE the petitioner was not officially informed as to the fate of his interview, he moved a writ application, being C. O. No. 10370 (W)/94 in November, 1994, inter alia, for a direction upon the respondents to appoint him as Constable in the Calcutta Police. The said writ application stood transferred to the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal and was re-numbered as T. A. No. 46 of 2000.

( 4 ) THE case as made out in the writ petition was that the Calcutta Police Regulations, 1968 as existing on the date when the petitioner was interviewed, did not provide for any viva-voce test to be taken or for a candidate to run hundred and four hundred metres and participate in fifteen feet long jump. It was contended that the petitioner, having been found suitable and having succeeded in the physical measurements, such as height, weight and chest measurement as provided in the recruitment Rules, 1968 of the Calcutta Police, he was entitled to be appointed in the post of Constable. It was contended that the introduction of a viva-voce test on the basis of which the petitioner was allegedly disqualified was contrary to the rules and the respondents acted illegally in taking recourse to the same in rejecting the petitioner's claim for appointment although he was eligible under the rules.

( 5 ) THE learned Tribunal after considering the case made out on behalf of the respective parties dismissed the petitioner's application by its judgment and order dated 12th July, 2003 upon holding that the petitioner's application was devoid of any merit since he had failed to prove his merit in reading and writing skill in the vernacular.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order of the learned Tribunal the petitioner has moved the present writ application and has reiterated the stand taken by him before the learned Tribunal.

( 7 ) APPEARING in support of the application Mr. Yamin Ali and, thereafter, Mr. Sadananda Ganguly learned Advocate, submitted that as had been held in various cases the respondents had adopted an erroneous procedure beyond the recruitment rules in eliminating candidates who are otherwise eligible under the rules. Both Mr. Ganguly as well as Mr. Ali urged that the respondents were not entitled to make a departure from the rules as existing as had been found by a Division Bench of this Court in F. M. A. No. 1044/90. The Division Bench in its judgment and order dated 21st April, 1999 dismissed the appeal preferred by the State of West Bengal and the police authorities upon holding that as there was no provision for interview or any other test, the adoption of such a procedure in deviation of the rules was improper and was of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge did not require any interference. It was submitted by Mr. Ali as also Mr. Ganguly that the Special Leave Petition taken from the said judgment and order of the Division Bench, being S. L. P. (Civil) No. 12627 of 1999, was dismissed on 3rd December, 1999. It was urged that having regard to such dismissal of the Special Leave Petition it must be held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had upheld the views expressed by the Division Bench in P. M. A. No. 1044/90.

( 8 ) APART from the above, reference was also made on behalf of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document