Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
SOUMEN SEN, HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, JJ.
The Public Service Commission, West Bengal and Another – Petitioners
Versus
Minarul Islam Mondal – Respondent
WPST Nos. 61, 62 of 2020
Decided On : 22-09-2021
Training Institute in West Bengal - Recruitment of Principal in Government Primary Teachers - Challenging the selection process initiated by the Public Service Commission - PSC to recommend the name of the original applicants to the Secretary, School Education Department for the posts - whether a candidate who does not obtain the qualifying cut off marks can be selected for the post of Principal only because certain posts were still lying vacant.
Finding of the Court:
Selection process is undertaken for the purpose of identifying the candidates who are suitable for the post in question. Selection is to be made strictly on the basis of the criterion specified for such post. Sympathy cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of selection of candidates for a particular post- Undue sympathy shown to the original applicants by directing their selection despite not possessing the desired merit would amount to interference with the right of the employer to appoint suitable and meritorious candidates for the post in question - learned Tribunal in our view, exceeded its jurisdiction by directing PSC to recommend the original applicants for appointment to the post of Principal of the GPTTI under the respective categories without requiring the Commission to decide whether any discretion could at all be exercised in favour of the original applicants having regard to the posts in which such selection were to be made.
Result: Writ Petitions allowed.
JUDGMENT :
HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.
1. Both the writ petitions were heard analogously as common questions of law and fact arise therein.
2. The respondent no. 1 in WPST no. 61 of 2020 (for short “WPST-1”) filed an original application being Original Application no. 293 of 2017 (for short “O.A. 1”) challenging the selection process initiated by the Public Service Commission (for short “PSC”) for recruitment of Principal in Government Primary Teachers’ Training Institute in West Bengal (for short “the GPTTI”).
3. The respondent no. 1 in WPST No. 62 of 2020 (for short “WPST-2”) filed the Original Application being no. 292 of 2017 (for short “O.A. 2”) before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal challenging the selection process initiated by the Public Service Commission for recruitment of Principal in GPTTI in West Bengal.
4. The learned Tribunal by separate judgments and orders both dated 14.02.2020 allowed the O.A. 1 and O.A. 2 by directing the PSC to recommend the name of the original applicants to the Secretary, School Education Department for the posts of Principal in the GPTTI under OBC (A) and Schedule Caste category respectively.
5. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and order, the PSC preferred the instant writ petitions.
6. The undisputed facts are as follows:-
(ii) The total number of vacancies declared for the said post were 11. Out of the said posts 2 were reserved for Schedule Caste and one each for Schedule Tribe, OBC category (A) and OBC category (B) candidates.
(iii) The respondent no. 1 in WPST-1 participated in the selection process for the post of Principal under OBC (A) category.
(iv) The respondent no. 1 in WPST-2 participated in the selection process for the post of Principal under Schedule Caste category.
(v) The aforesaid respondents were found eligible for the post of Principal and they were asked to appear for an interview.
(vi) They appeared in the said interview but their names were not included in the panel of five candidates.
(vii) Respondent no. 1 of WPST-1 scored 36 marks in the interview and the respondent no. 1 of WPST-2 scored 30 marks in the interview.
7. The case made out by the original applicants before the Tribunal was that they were eligible for the post of Principal in GPTTI and they participated and performed satisfactorily in the interview. However, the PSC did not recommend their names for the respective posts in spite of available vacancies. It was specifically contended that there was no cut off marks in the interview.
8. The original applicant in O.A. 1 contended that since he was the only participant under OBC (A) category the PSC ought to have recommended his name.
9. The original applicant in O.A. 2 contended that though in the advertisement 2 vacancies were declared under Schedule Caste category but the PSC recommended only one candidate and the original applicant was not recommended for appointment.
10. PSC contested the original applications before the Tribunal by filing an affidavit-in-reply denying the allegations contained in the original applications. It was specifically contended therein that as the original applicants failed to secure minimum qualifying cut off marks in the interview prescribed in the resolution taken in the Full Commission meeting held on September 19, 2014, the names of the original applicants were not recommended.
11. The learned Tribunal by the judgments and orders allowed the original applications. Being aggrieved, the PSC preferred the instant writ petitions.
12. Mr. Pradip Kumar Roy, the learned advocate for the appellant contended that the PSC being an expert body undertaking recruitment examinations has the power to fix qualifying cut off marks for all cases of recruitment examination as well as selection cas
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
