The interpretation of the educational qualification requirement as per the advertisement and the necessity of accreditation by AICTE for the diploma in computer applications or information technology.

JUDGMENT :

1. The West Bengal Cooperative Service Commission published an advertisement being Advertisement No. 02/2017 inviting online applications for recruitment in several posts in various cooperative institutions as mentioned in the said advertisement.

2. The petitioners herein applied for the post of clerk. The educational qualification required for the said post was mentioned as "Graduate in any discipline with 50% marks in HS plus DCA or IT or equivalent accredited by AICTE". As per the said advertisement DCA meant Diploma in Computer Applications with minimum one year duration. IT meant Information Technology, AICTE meant All India Council for Technical Education. The admit cards were issued in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners appeared in the written test and were selected for the computer test and interview. The petitioners qualified in the computer test and the interview. A list of recommended candidates on the basis of merit-cum-preference was published. The petitioners' name figured in the said list.

3. The Secretary of the Commission forwarded the list of candidates recommended by the Selection Committee of the Commission to the Managing Director of the bank with request to issue appointment letters in their favour. It was informed that the service will be guided by the Service Rules of the bank. Inter-se seniority of the recommended candidates to be observed irrespective of their date of joining.

4. In spite of their names being recommended for appointment to the post of clerk no formal appointment letter was issued in favour of the petitioners. No reason whatsoever was also communicated to the petitioners for not issuing the formal letter of appointment. The petitioners through their learned advocate served notice upon the respondent bank as well as the Commission demanding justice. No reply was given to the said letter. The petitioners also made application under the Right to Information Act enquiring whether any steps have been taken for issuance of the appointment letter in their favour. No response was forthcoming from the authority.

5. In such circumstances the petitioners filed the instant writ application with a prayer for issuance of writ of mandamus upon the respondent bank to accord appointment to the petitioners who are the recommended candidates as per the list prepared by the Selection Committee of the Commission.

6. As per the direction passed by this court the respondent authorities filed report in the form of affidavit disclosing their stand as to non-issuance of the letter of appointment in favour of the petitioners in spite of their names being enlisted in the list of recommended candidates.

7. The bank has specifically mentioned that the appointment letter was not issued to the petitioners as they did not possess the requisite educational qualification for being appointed in the post of clerk. It has been mentioned that though the petitioners possess a diploma in computer applications but the said diploma was not accredited by AICTE.

8. The primary contention of the respondent bank is that at the time of verification of the documents of the petitioners it was detected that the diploma obtained by the petitioners were not accredited by AICTE as was the requirement mentioned in the notice of advertisement. In the absence of accreditation of the diploma by AICTE the petitioners were not eligible to be appointed in the said post. In the advertisement it was categorically mentioned that the candidates have to possess either a diploma in computer applications or information technology or equivalent and the said qualification was required to be accredited by AICTE.

9. It was further submitted that, in the application form it was specifically mentioned that if at any stage it is found that the candidate has suppressed information or provided wrong information his candidature was liable to be cancelled. It has been stated that the petitioners being fully aware that an accreditation was mandatorily re