IMPORTANT POINT
Employers can set qualifications for posts, but must do so through formal rules; arbitrary exclusions without such rules are invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Kausik Chanda, J.

The petitioner unsuccessfully participated in a selection process for recruitment of Group-D staff conducted by this Court in terms of a notification dated September 28, 2018. By filing this writ petition, he challenges the appointment of respondent nos.7 and 8 to Group-D posts of this Court.

2. The petitioner argues that clause 7 of the said notification debarred the Graduate candidates from applying for the posts. Respondent nos.7 and 8 both are Graduates, and they participated in the selection process by way of suppression of their Graduate degree.

3. The petitioner has prayed for the cancellation of the appointment of respondent nos.7 and 8 and his appointment to a Group-D post.

4. A Coordinate Bench of this Court by an interim order dated August 22, 2022, observed, inter alia, that since the allegations against respondent nos.7 and 8 are very serious in nature, the services of the said respondents shall not be approved and/or confirmed until disposal of this writ petition or until further orders, whichever is earlier. It was clarified that in the event the writ petition fails and respondent nos.7 and 8 are exonerated from the charges levelled against them, they shall get all service benefits from the date they have been given appointment.

5. Mr. Mukunda Lal Sarkar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has strenuously argued that respondent nos.7 and 8 appeared in the selection process and secured their appointments by suppressing their Graduate qualification. Therefore, their service is liable to be terminated.

6. In support of his argument, Mr. Sarkar has relied upon a judgment reported at (2023) 7 SCC 536 (Satish Chandra Yadav vs. Union of India), where the Supreme Court upheld the termination of service of some CRPF employees for suppression of relevant information pertaining to the pendency of criminal cases filed against them in antecedent and verification form at the time of recruitment.

7. Mr. Soumya Majumder, learned advocate appearing for respondent nos.7 and 8, on the other hand, does not dispute the fact that respondent nos.7 and 8 are Graduates. He, however, submits that the writ petitioner was unsuccessful in the selection process. He did not even qualify in the written examination to participate in the interview. Therefore, the writ petitioner had no chance of being appointed to the post in question. He prays that this writ petition should not be entertained since a legal right that can be enforced under the writ jurisdiction must ordinarily be the right of the petitioner who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief. An existing right is the foundation of the exercise of writ jurisdiction. In support of such submission, Mr. Majumder has relied upon the following judgments reported at AIR 1962 SC 1044 (Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. V. State of West Bengal) and (1998) 6 SCC 741 (Union of India v. N. Y. Apte).

8. Mr. Majumder has further argued that a criterion denying the right to be considered for a post, for having higher qualification than prescribed cannot be rational. He has relied upon the judgment reported at (2000) 2 SCC 606 (Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani v. District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur).

9. By placing reliance upon the judgment reported at (2010) 2 Cal LJ 321 (Rina Dutta v. Anjali Mahato), Mr. Majumder submits that it is open to the employer to make a rule providing for disqualification of a candidate with higher qualification than prescribed but burden lies on the employer to justify such rule.

10. Mr. Majumder further relied upon a judgment reported at (2015) 5 CHN 138 (The State of West Bengal v. Chaitali Das) to argue that a higher qualification than the prescribed is not a bar to apply for a post.

11. Mr. Debashis Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the High Court Administration, has submitted that a candidate possessing a qualification higher than that advertised can ordinarily not be debarred or disqualified but it is open