Back
2023 Supreme(Cal) 1273
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
DEBANGSU BASAK, MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, JJ.
The Public Service Commission, West Bengal & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Pritam Ghosal & Anr. – Respondents
WP.ST 9 of 2021
Decided On : 19-06-2023
For the Petitioners: Ms. Shraboni Sarkar.
For the Private Respondent: Mr. Saktipada Jana, Mr. Subhajyoti Das.
IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a candidate cannot challenge the selection process if the result is not favorable and that authorities can prescribe cut off marks if the rules are silent.
Headnote:
Public Service Commission - Selection Process - 1995 SCC(3) 486, (2018) 12 SCC 635, (2020) 2 SCC 173 - The court discussed the issue of changing rules midstream, prescribing cut off marks, and participation in the selection process. The judgment referenced legal provisions to establish that the private respondent was not prejudiced and that the authorities' action was not in violation of the rules.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the selection process for the post of Krishi Prayukti Shayak in West Bengal. The private respondent participated in the process and was later directed to be recommended and appointed by the tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the private respondent was not prejudiced by the selection process and that the authorities' action in giving an appointment to a person with lesser marks was not in violation of the rules.
Issues: The issues included the prescription of cut off marks, participation in the selection process, and the changing of rules midstream.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the private respondent was not prejudiced and that the authorities' action was not in violation of the rules. It also emphasized that a candidate cannot challenge the selection process when the result is not favorable.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the case accordingly and extended the time period to comply with the tribunal's order.
JUDGMENT :
Debangsu Basak, J.
1. Public Service Commission is aggrieved by an order dated December 14, 2020 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in OA no. 940 of 2019. By the impugned order, the learned tribunal, directed the Public Service Commission, West Bengal and its Secretary to recommend the name of the private respondent for the post of Krishi Prayukti Shayak to the Secretary Department of Agriculture, Government of West Bengal within eight weeks from the date of the presentation of the order. The State of West Bengal was directed to appoint the private respondent within eight weeks.
2. Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners submits that, the issue as to whether, rules of the game can be changed midstream is pending consideration of the Larger Bench. The Larger Bench is yet to pronounce on such issue finally. She submits that, such issue was referred to by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2013) 4 SCC 540 [Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors.].
3. Relying on 1995 SCC(3) 486 [Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. The State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.], (2018) 12 SCC 635 [Karnati Ravi vs. Commissioner, Survey Settlements & Land Records & Ors.] and (2020) 2 SCC 173 [Anupal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department & Ors.], learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners submits that, a higher cut off marks can be prescribed through the selection process. She contends that, the private respondent participated in the selection process knowing fully well the parameter of the selection process. The private respondent participated in the interview without any objection. The cut off mark was prescribed for the purpose of interview. The fact that, the petitioners would be prescribing a cut off mark of the interview was notified to all the persons participating in the interview including the private respondent, prior to the private respondent participating in the interview. Information with regard thereto was published in the Website of the writ petitioners on April 9, 2018. Advertisement to such effect was published in the newspaper on April 12, 2018. The interview of the writ petitioners was held subsequently. Therefore, the private respondent was not prejudiced.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the private respondent submits that, the private respondent was never informed by the petitioners that, there would be a cut off mark in the interview. No cut off mark was prescribed for the interview at the commencement of the selection process or even midstream. A list of persons who qualified in the written examination was published on April 9, 2018 where the private respondent figured. He refers to the advertisement published in the newspaper and submits that, therein, the writ petitioners claimed that they would be specifying a cut off mark without actually specifying a cut off mark for the interview. In such circumstances, according to him, the learned tribunal was right in directing the private respondent to be recommended and appointed.
5. On a query from the Court, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners submits that, the cut off mark of the written interview was prescribed subsequent to the conclusion of the interview.
6. In the facts of the present case, an advertisement was published in the year 2016 for the purpose of considering candidature for appointment to the post of Krishi Prayukti Shayak. The private respondent participated therein. The selection process consisted of two parts. One part was the written examination and the other part was the interview. The selection process provided that the final merit list would be prepared on the basis of the total marks obtained by the candidate -in written examination of 150 marks and interview 15 marks. The written examination was held on December 18, 2016.
7. Attention of the Court was not drawn to any qualifying marks being prescribed by the Public Service Commission for the interview but a
