The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to intervene in cases of illegal, mala fide, or arbitrary exercise of power and discretion by State authorities, and to grant equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

ORDER

Aniruddha Roy, J. - Facts:

1. The writ petitioner as an intending candidate applied for the Post of Assistant Teacher in Bengali (Pass), pursuant to the Notification issued by the respondent authority. Provisional Admit Card was issued in favour of the petitioner by the third respondent and the petitioner was allowed to appear in the written test in Section A and Section B scheduled on July 29, 2012. The petitioner duly appeared in the said written examination. The third respondent uploaded the result of the said written examination in its official website and the petitioner had qualified in Section A (Part-II) examination as would be evident from Annexure P-5 to the writ petition.

2. Despite qualifying in Part-II, Section A written examination, the petitioner did not receive any call for interview i.e. the personality test.

3. By a letter dated August 12, 2013the petitioner under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, the RTI Act) requested the seventh respondent to furnish him the informations regarding the marks awarded to the petitioner in subject test (Section B) and to make over his answers scripts to him. The petitioner also requested to intimate him the lowest marks of the candidate, who was called for personality test. By a letter dated August 14, 2013 the sixth respondent informed the petitioner that in a meeting of the third respondent held on July 04, 2013, it was decided that no information with regard to the said examination to be provided under the RTI Act until finalization of the merit list. The selection process had completed, without providing the necessary information as was sought for by the petitioner under the said application dated August 12, 2013. The petitioner then made another representation on March 03, 2014 requesting the seventh respondent for supplying all those informations as were sought for by the petitioner through his said letter dated August 12, 2013.

4. By a letter dated March 26, 2014 the ninth respondent requested the fifth respondent to provide the information sought for by the petitioner. By a letter dated August 21, 2014 the ninth respondent informed the petitioner that he had secured 16 marks in academic and 39 marks in the subject test aggregating to 55 marks, whereas the last candidate with the lowest marks who was called for the personality test secured 56 marks in aggregate. The petitioner was also asked to collect the photocopy of his answer scripts upon payment of the necessary charges. On September 02, 2014 upon deposit of the necessary charges the petitioner obtained photocopies of his answer scripts of his subject test, Annexure P-11 to the writ petition, from the Office of the sixth respondent.

5. From such answer scripts it revealed that, the marks obtained by the petitioner against each question in respect of several questions, which were originally awarded by the examiner concerned had been scrolled through or over written and was changed or reduced to a lesser number without any comment, initial or signature of the examiner concerned. Against most of the answers the numbers were reduced by scrolling through the original number save and except in two answers the marks were increased in a similar manner. The entries on the top sheet had also been reduced and altered like wise. Originally the petitioner secured 43 marks out of 60, whereas, after alteration the total marks secured had come down to 39.

6. Being aggrieved by the said unilateral action on the part of the respondent authorities concerning the recruitment to the Post of Assistant Teacher under 12th Regional Level Selection Test, 2011 (for short, RLST), the petitioner moved the previous writ petition WP No. 29012 (W) of 2014 before this Hon'ble Court. By an Order dated April 01, 2015 the said writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file afresh on the self-same cause of action including a challenge to the resolution adopted by the third respondent in its 396th Meeting held o