IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present :

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

&

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMITA DAS DE

FMA 530 of 2020

Sujit Halder

Vs.

Tea Board of India & Ors.

IA No. CAN/1/2020

For the Appellant : Mr. Bikash Ranjan Neogi

Ms. Ananya Neogi

Ms. Anushka Ghosh

For the Respondent : Mr. Soumya Majumdar, Ld. Sr. Adv.

Nos.1 and 3 Mr. Victor Chatterjee,

Mr. A. Sarkar

Heard On : 19.09.2025 Judgment On : 25.09.2025

Sujoy Paul, J.

1. This intra Court appeal challenges the Judgment dated 14th May, 2019

passed in WP 6591 (W) of 2013 whereby Learned Single Judge

dismissed the writ application.

Facts:

2. The appellant filed the said writ petition challenging the selection

process for the post of development officer pursuant to the advertisement issued by Tea Board of India (Board). As per the

advertisement, total vacancies for the said post were 41. Out of 41 posts, 6 posts were earmarked for SC category whereas 3 and 10 posts were earmarked for ST and OBC categories respectively. The appellant submitted his candidature for the said post in SC quota and participated in the written examination followed by interview. The stand of appellant is that the result of written examination and marks obtained by the candidates were not disclosed. The appellant unsuccessfully tried to obtain the said information by preferring an RTI application but same could not fetch any result. The appellant filed the instant writ petition which came to be dismissed.

Contention of the appellant:

3. The Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that as per the stand taken by board in Affidavit-in-Opposition, a general candidate must secure 60% marks in the written examination whereas a reserve category candidate must secure 55%. The same is the criteria for the interview. The appellant allegedly received 14.7 marks in interview and accordingly, appellant was declared as failed and could not secure employment. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that 25 candidates successfully passed the selection process which includes 13 candidates under reserve category comprising of 1 SC and 1 ST and 11 OBC and 12 general category candidates. In obedience of order of Learned Trial Judge dated 8th November, 2018, the board filed a Supplementary Affidavit and stated about the qualifying marks for written examination and interview mentioned hereinabove. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that 11 reserve category candidates obtained more marks than the minimum cut of marks for general category and hence they were treated as general category candidates and were accordingly appointed. The learned counsel for the appellant prepared a written note and out of the said note canvassed the ground that initially the total marks to appear in the interview were fixed as 100. Out of 100, the selection board granted 14.7% marks to the appellant. The marks were subsequently reduced from 100 to 80 with a view to declare unqualified candidates as qualified. This act of reducing the marks should not have been done after completion of the interview. The stand of appellant is that after having reduced the marks from 100 to 80, the marks obtained by appellant in interview should have been correspondingly changed by treating the total marks as 80. This exercise has not been done which vitiates the selection process. The argument about discrimination was raised by contending that the candidate namely, Anupam Nandi was not included in the merit list originally but he was subsequently added. In the written note following points are raised:

I) In the advertisement it was not mentioned that competitive examination would be conducted and qualifying marks were not disclosed. Hence selection is bad in law.

II) The action of reducing the total marks for interview from 100 to 80 to favour certain candidates was improper.

III) The candidates who could not secure qualifying marks, were appointed and this aspect was highlighted in the reply/rejoinder.

IV) The action of Respo