IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that any resolution or directive inconsistent with statutory recruitment rules is invalid and beyond jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, J.

1. The dispute pertains to the decision of the West Bengal Central Schools Service Commission in re-evaluating the answer scripts under the pretext of the scrutiny in terms of the resolution taken by the Committee constituted by the said Commission on 31st December, 2009. Before we proceed to decide the points urged in the writ petition as well as in the instant mandamus appeal, it would be relevant to narrate the undisputed facts emerged from the respective pleadings of the parties and the submissions made thereupon.

2. The Education Department of the State of West Bengal published the notification dated 28.12.2011 notifying the vacancies to the post of an Assistant Teacher in several secondary schools in the respective Districts all over the State of West Bengal. The said recruitment process is commonly known as the 12th Regional Level Selection Test and a brochure was also published containing an exhaustive information relating to the manner, procedure and the scope of the selection of the person to such post in terms of the provision contained in West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of persons for appointment to the Post of a Teacher) Rules, 2007 as amended from time to time. The petitioner offered his candidature and was issued a provisional admit card to appear in the written test in Section A and Section B on 29th July, 2012. The Commission uploaded the results in its website and it would appear therefrom that the respondent qualified in Section A (Part II) Examination by getting a qualifying marks. Despite having obtained the qualifying marks, the respondent was not called for the personality test which constrained him to cause a letter dated 12.08.2013 to the Chairman of the said Commission, Northern Region to intimate the marks awarded to the petitioner in Section B examination and also to hand over the answer scripts of the said examination. The aforesaid letter was issued under the Right to Information Act which was duly replied by the Commission that unless the merit list is finalised such information cannot be given. Subsequently, another application under the Right to Information Act was taken out seeking an information in the form of a query which was duly replied to by the competent authority wherefrom it appears that the respondent got 16 marks in academic and 39 marks in subject test aggregating 55 marks whereas the last candidate who was called for personality test acquired 56 marks. Subsequently, the respondent applied for supply of the answer scripts upon deposit of the requisite fees in terms of the right conferred in the said notification and/or brochure and on perusal of the answer script so supplied, it is revealed that the marks awarded by the examiner was subsequently changed or there appears to be a overwriting without any signature or the initial which led the petitioner to approach this Court with the writ petition challenging the procedures so adopted.

3. A plea was taken by the Commission that in 396th Meeting of the said Commission held on 31st December, 2009, it was unanimously decided that the answer scripts of the candidate examined by the examiner shall be scrutinised by a scrutiniser for the purpose of checking the marks of each answer and its posting in the top sheet who was further authorised to make correction for any over-marking/under-marking to any answer, if so required. It was thus contended that by virtue of the said policy decision taken before the notification issued for 12th Regional Selection Test, the scrutiniser can re-evaluate the answers and may alter the marks awarded by the examiner and necessary corrections in the top sheet has been undertaken which would further be evident that the scrutiniser has put his signature on the front sheet of the answer script.

4. The petitioner challenged the said resolution being contrary to the law and the regulations governing the field on the premise that the Commission cannot alter the Rules or Regu