The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of necessity, the test of bias in the selection process, and the right of unsuccessful candidates to challenge the process.

JUDGMENT

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. - The petitioners before the Court responded to an advertisement of 14.1.2011 for filling up a few designated posts for non-teaching staff in the Bikramjeet Goswami Memorial College, Purulia. The petitioners applied for the said posts and appeared in the written examination on 6.2.2011. The petitioners state that they successfully completed the written examination and received a call for appearing before the Standing Committee for an interview on 13.6.2011. The interview was however not held as scheduled. The petitioners allege that several persons were appointed in the advertised posts thereafter. The petitioners further allege that all the appointees were related to members of the Governing Body or the Principal of the College. The petitioners seek quashing of the selection and the appointments of the candidates being respondent nos. 9-15, to the posts of non-teaching staff in the College.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners alleges bias on the part of the Governing Body and submits that each of the appointees was related in some manner or the other to the President and Members of the Governing Body as well as the Standing Committee of the College. Counsel further submits that despite the petitioners receiving letters for an interview, the petitioners were not allowed to participate in the oral test round which was scheduled to be held on 13.6.2011. It is further submitted that the appointments did not follow any proper process which would be evident from the Government nominee on the Board of the Governing Body lodging a complaint before the competent authority on the mode and manner of the appointments.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the State defends the appointments and submits that the panel was prepared by the Selection Committee and was approved by the Director of Public Instructions on 2.1.2012. Counsel submits that the complaint made in the writ petition is an after-thought and suffers from unexplained delay. It is further submitted that the petitioners are unsuccessful candidates and hence do not have locus standi to challenge the selection of the private respondents.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, namely respondent nos. 9-13 and 15 submits that the petitioners were contenders for the posts of clerk and typist and are hence not entitled to challenge the appointments in the other five posts. Counsel places a statement of the marks awarded to the petitioners; that the petitioner no. 1 who applied for the post of clerk secured 39 out of 50 in the written test and 4 out of 5 for academics hence having a total score of 43.

The petitioner no. 2 who applied for the post of typist secured 24 out of 50 in the written examination and 3 out of 5 in academics with a total score of 27. Counsel defends the selection of the respondent no. 12 to the post of clerk as the said respondent got a total score of 49 and the respondent no. 11 to the post of typist as the said respondent obtained a total score of 39. Counsel submits that none of the petitioners stood a chance of being selected and that cancelling the interview did not make a difference to the overall performance or the marks awarded to the petitioners. Counsel disputes the fact of the Government nominee making a complaint in relation to the selection. It is also submitted that the petitioner no.1 is now gainfully employed as a primary teacher with effect from 13.2.2017. Counsel further submits that the interviews were held for the posts of two peons and one guard and that respondent nos. 10, 13 and 14 were selected to the said posts. It is also submitted that although a plea of bias is taken by the petitioners, the father of the petitioner no. 2 was also a member of the Governing Body of the College at the relevant point of time. It is also submitted that the doctrine of necessity was pressed into service by the College and the private respondents were appointed to the posts without delay.

5. Before thi