Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, JJ.
Swapan Kumar Das & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Biswajit Maji & Anr. - Respondents
APO No. 218 of 2014, 219 of 2014 And WP 1190 of 2013
Decided On : 23-12-2014
For the ECL :Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta, Senior Advocate Mr. Anubhav Sinha, Advocate and Ms. Sanchita Barman Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent Writ Petitioner:Mr. Partha Ghosh, Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Advocate and Mr. Shamik Chatterjee, Advocates
For the Swapan Das & Ors :Mr. Arunava Ghosh, Soumya Majumdar, Sunny Nandy, Prateep Bera, and Ricky Rai, Advocates
For the CBI :Md. Ashraf Ali, Advocate
For the Added Respondents 12, 13 & 14:Mr. Subrata Ganguly, Advocate
Once the selection process commences, the eligibility criteria cannot be altered, as per the settled principle of service jurisprudence.
Headnote:
RECRUITMENT PROCESS - ILLEGALITY - RELAXATION OF ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA - EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. - SECURITY GUARD - TECHNICAL AND SUPERVISOR GRADE 'G' - ARTICLE 12 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SERVICE JURISPRUDENCE - MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS. V. RAJENDRA BHIMRAO MANDVE & ORS - AIR 2002 SC 224 - G.N. NAYAK V. GOA UNIVERSITY - (2002) 2 SCC 702 - JOGINDER PAL & ORS. V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. - (2014) 6 SCC 644 - TEJ PRAKASH PATHAK AND ORS. V. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND ORS. - (2013) 4 SCC 540 - ARBITRARY EXERCISE OF POWER - APPOINTING AUTHORITY - ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA - ALTERATION - COMMENCEMENT OF SELECTION PROCESS - SETTLED PRINCIPLE.
Fact of the Case:
Eastern Coalfields Ltd (ECL) invited applications for the post of Security Guard - Technical and Supervisor Grade 'G'. The selection process involved a Physical Efficiency Test (PET), a written test, and an interview. ECL relaxed the PET standards twice and allowed NCC-'A' certificate holders to apply, despite the original notice requiring NCC-'B & C' certificates. The writ petitioners, unsuccessful candidates, challenged the recruitment process, alleging that the relaxations were arbitrary and illegal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that ECL, being an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, could not alter the eligibility criteria for the PET or make NCC-'A' certificate holders eligible to apply for the post after the selection process had commenced. The court found that the relaxations were arbitrary and illegal and vitiated the entire selection process.
Issues: 1. Whether ECL could alter the eligibility criteria for the PET and make NCC-'A' certificate holders eligible to apply for the post after the selection process had commenced. 2. Whether the writ petitioners, who had participated in the PET and the written test, could challenge the selection process.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that once the selection process commences, the eligibility criteria cannot be altered, as per the settled principle of service jurisprudence. This is to prevent arbitrary or capricious exercise of power by the appointing authority towards securing candidates who were otherwise ineligible to the concerned post. 2. The court held that the writ petitioners, who had participated in the PET and the written test, could challenge the selection process as the relaxations in the eligibility criteria were arbitrary and illegal and vitiated the entire selection process.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the recruitment process. The court directed ECL to conduct a fresh recruitment process in accordance with the original notice inviting applications.
Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.
All the above appeals are directed against the order dated March 31, 2014 passed by a learned Single Judge holding that the entire recruitment process adopted by Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "ECL") for the post of Security Guard - Technical and Supervisor Grade 'G' (hereinafter referred to as the said post) is illegal. APO No. 218 of 2014 that is the first appeal is filed by ECL. The second and the third appeal being APO No. 219 of 2014, and APO No. 256 of 2014 are filed by candidates who were successful till the stage of written test and are allowed to participate in the interview (hereinafter referred as the successful candidate). The writ petitioners, whose prayers were allowed by the learned Single Judge also filed a cross-objection alleging that one of their grounds of challenge was not accepted as stated hereinafter.
2. On June 25, 2011 ECL published an advertisement inviting applications from Ex-Army/EX-BSF personnel or NCC, B & C Certificate holder or Sportsman of All India repute for the said post. 215 vacancies were notified in the said notice and the eligibility criteria relating to educational qualification was fixed as Matric or equivalent examination from any recognised Board or examination. The appellant received 6,400 applications and 2580 applications were found to fulfil the eligibility criteria indicated in the said notice. The first step of the selection process required the applicants to pass the Physical Eligibility Test, thereafter they would appear in the written test and those successful in written test could finally appear in the oral interview. Those successful in the Interview, would be finally selected to the said post.
3. After a period of nearly one year a date was notified for conducting the Physical Efficiency Tests (PET) and the names of 2580 candidates were published for participating in the said PET. It was indicated in the first notice that, in the said PET, the male candidates, to be successful, had to run 5 kilometers within 24 minutes and the female candidates had to run 1.6 kilometers within 8.30 minutes. However, due to extremely high temperature of weather, the said PET could not be held on the first schedule date. The PET was held on a later held when 524 candidates appeared out of which 149 candidates could qualify. Subsequently, by a notice dated February 28, 2013 ECL relaxed the standard of PET to the effect that, in order to be qualified a male candidates had to run 1600 meters within 10 minutes and a female candidate had to run 400 kilometers within three minutes. The said notice, however, permitted the unsuccessful candidates who could not complete the distance within specified time on the first occasion to be eligible for re-participation. This time, when PET was conducted between March 20, 2013 and March 25, 2013, 406 candidates participated and 392 candidates could qualify. Before proceeding further for the written test and interview, ECL issued a corrigendum dated May 10, 2013 to the said notice/advertisement allowing candidates having NCC-'A' certificate holders to participate in the said recruitment process. This time, 2546 candidates were found to be eligible for PET and under the relaxed condition, the PET was scheduled to be held from August 26, 2013 to August 31, 2013. The candidates who could run the distance within the notified time under the first condition and the second relaxed condition were allowed to sit in the written examination held on October 6, 2013 and the result of such written examination was published on December 6, 2013 and 641 candidates were short listed for interview.
4. On December 4, 2013 the above writ petition being WP 1190 of 2014 was filed and on December 24, 2013 the learned Single Judge passed an interim order restraining ECL and the other respondents/ authorities from filling up the post without obtaining leave of this Court but permitted to complete the process of interview with cl
