IMPORTANT POINT
Candidates must challenge recruitment eligibility criteria if they disagree and cannot contest the prescribed qualifications after participating in the selection process.

JUDGMENT :

Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.

1. As both the appeals being MAT 484 of 2020 and MAT 519 of 2020 have been preferred challenging the judgment dated 13th May, 2020 delivered in the writ petitions being W.P. No.22018 (W) of 2018 and W.P. No.22019 (W) of 2018 respectively, the same have been taken up for analogous hearing.

2. The West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (in short, WBSEDCL) published an advertisement dated 25th February, 2017 for recruitment to the posts of Sub-Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and Assistant Engineer (IT & C). In the said advertisement it was stated inter alia that for the post of Sub-Assistant Engineer (Electrical) the eligibility qualification would be ‘Diploma in Electrical Engineering from Institute/College duly recognized by any of the State Council of Technical Education’ and that for the post of Assistant Engineer (IT & C) the eligibility qualification would be ‘Degree in Computer and Engineering from Institute/College duly recognized by any of the State Council of Technical Education’. The selection would be made on the basis of performance in a Written Test (in short, WT), Computer Proficiency Test (in short, CPT) and interview. In response thereto, the appellants in MAT 484 of 2020, who belong to OBC-A category and had obtained Bachelor of Technology in Electrical Engineering degree from Aliah University, applied. Similarly, the appellant in MAT 519 of 2020, who belong to OBC-A category and had obtained Bachelor of Technology in Computer and Engineering degree from Aliah University, applied. After participation in WT as well as CPT, they were not called for viva voce and they came to learn that WBSEDCL had decided to short list candidates by fixing cut-off marks based on the results of WT and CPT. The appellants, accordingly, submitted applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, RTI Act) and came to learn that the cut-off mark was stipulated to be 68 and that they have secured more than such cut-off marks. Thereafter to know the reason for denial of participation in the viva voce, the appellants again submitted applications under the RTI Act and by a letter dated 7th September, 2018, it was intimated by WBSEDCL that ‘the B. Tech course completed by the RTI applicant was not approved by AICTE. Hence, the candidature of the RTI applicant could not be considered for further processing’. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants preferred the writ petitions which were disposed of by the judgment impugned in the present appeal.

3. On behalf of the writ petitioners/appellants it was argued before the Writ Court that WBSEDCL could not have rejected their candidature on the ground of non-approval of their B. Tech course by the All India Council of Technical Education (in short, AICTE) since they obtained the B. Tech degree from the Aliah University, a State Funded University recognized under the University Grant Commission Act (in short, UGC) and such degree does not require the approval of AICTE. In support of such contention reliance was placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of Bharathidasan University and Another vs. All-India Council for Technical Education and Others, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 676, wherein it has inter alia been observed that ‘the power to grant approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned is covered by Section 10(k) which would not cover a ‘university’ but only a ‘technical institution’. It was also argued that in appreciation of the fact that there was no requirement for approval of AICTE in a case where degrees have been obtained from a UGC recognized University, WBSEDCL modified its recruitment policy, 2010 excluding the requirement for approval of such degrees by AICTE.

4. Before the Writ Court, WBSEDCL contended that the appellants participated in the selection process without challenging the advertisement in which required eligibility