I.No.14.

Form No. J(2)

In the High Court at Calcutta

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present: The Hon’ble Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra

W.P.A.26724 of 2024

Sk. Hasibur Rahaman

Vs.

The Aliah University, New Town

Rajarhat & Ors.

For the petitioner : Mr. Samim Ahammed,

Mr. Arka Maiti,

Ms. Ambiya Khatun,

Ms. Saloni Bhattacharya, Ms. Gulsanwara Pervin,

Md. Nasirul Haque, Ms. Reshma Khatun.

For the University : Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty,

Mrs. Amrita De.

Heard on : 07.01.2026 & 08.01.2026

Judgment dictated

in open Court on : 08.01.2026

Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.:-

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the acts of omission and/or commission of the respondent authorities in not appointing the petitioner

to the post of Audit and Accounts Officer.

2. The facts in a nutshell may be summarized as under;

(a) The petitioner has been working as an Accounts Officer in the respondent No.1.

(b) Pursuant to an advertisement dated June 27, 2015, applications were invited from eligible candidates for recruitment to various posts, including that of an Audit and Accounts Officer.

(c) The petitioner had submitted his academic credentials and was thereafter called for an interview by the Selection Committee, sometime in 2020.

(d) The interview was duly held, though there was no response from the authorities as to the fate of the participants.

(e) The petitioner was constrained to make an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, sometime in June 2023 to the concerned officer of the respondent No.1.

(f) Pursuant to such application, by a communication of July 26, 2023, the petitioner to came to learn that of the eight short-listed candidates, five had participated in the interview process, amongst whom the petitioner was the highest ranked person with a percentage of 47.36.

(g) However, it appears from the score-sheet disclosed by the petitioner, which was made available to him under the Right to Information Act, 2005, all the five candidates who participated, were found to be “not suitable”. In fact, this score-sheet also finds a hand written endorsement that “it is resolved unanimously that none is found suitable for the said post.”

(h) Upon receipt of such particulars, especially the score-sheet, the petitioner had made a representation to the Vice Chancellor of the respondent No.2 on August 24, 2023, in September 2023 and on May 10, 2024 seeking appointment to the post of Audit and Accounts Officer.

3. It is this process, undertaken by the University in not appointing the petitioner that has been assailed in the present writ petition.

4. Mr. Ahammed appearing for the petitioner submits that the process ought to be set aside on two principal grounds.

5. First, since there was no benchmark set by the interviewing committee and the marks awarded in the interview was absolutely subjective.

6. Second, the distribution of marks for the academic credential and the interview are contrary to the law set forth by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in several decisions.

7. Mr. Ahammed‟s consequential argument is that the process ought to be set aside and the petitioner should be appointed as the Audit and Accounts Officer, being the best available candidate for the post of Audit and Accounts Officer.

8. He has relied upon three decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India which are as under;

i) K. Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2008(3) SCC 512;

ii) Barot Vijaykumar Balakrishna & Ors. Vs. Modh Vinaykumar Dasrathlal & Ors., reported in (2011) 7 SCC 308; &

iii) Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3184;

9. The decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court relied upon by Mr. Ahammed are clear and unequivocal. It is not in dispute that benchmarks ought to be set by an authority prior to embarking on a process for appointment to a post in an educational institution. Any process where the benchmark has been set either during the process or thereafter cannot be sustained in law.

10. Mr. Chakraborty appearing fo