IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay W.P.A. 33043 of 2013 Mr. Pulakesh Chatterjee -Vs-

The Public Service Commission & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Roy For the Respondents : Ms. Piyali Sengupta Heard on : 03.07.2024, 13.08.2024, 08.07.2025 Judgment on : 28.08.2025 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

1. The petitioner sought issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the West Bengal Public Service Commission hereinafter referred to as (WBPSC) to allow him to appear in the interview for the post of Surveyor having been arbitrarily denied participation despite qualifying in the written examination.

2. The petitioner qualified as a B.Com (Pass) Graduate from Calcutta University and held a Diploma in Surveying from Daulatabad Sri Ram Chandra Survey Society, in addition to requisite experience in survey work.

3. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 02.12.2011 for recruitment of 61 Surveyors and Draftsmen, the petitioner applied for the same with all requisite academic and technical qualifications. His application was scrutinized and accepted. Thereafter, he was permitted to appear in the written examination, and successfully passed the same.

4. The petitioner’s name was published at Serial No. 4 in the list of successful candidates and was called for interview scheduled on 15.07.2013. Owing to administrative reasons, the interview was deferred.

5. Subsequently, by letter dated 13.09.2013, the respondents for the first time alleged the petitioner to have lacked three years’ of experience in survey work – a ground not raised earlier, despite the fact of the petitioner having submitted experience certificates evincing requisite experience. He had also been permitted to appear in the All India Trade Test (Surveyor) under NCVT guidelines, which itself required three years’ prior experience

6. To his utter dismay the revised interview list dated 22.10.2013, omitted the petitioner’s name without justification, disregarding his inclusion in the earlier interview list.

7. The petitioner vehemently expressed the respondents, having scrutinized his qualifications and experience earlier, could not subsequently reject his candidature on vague and baseless grounds. Any lapse or negligence, if at all, was on the part of the respondents not attributable to the petitioner.

8. The action of the respondents was therefore arbitrary, discriminatory, and mala fide, violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Being “State” within the meaning of Article 12, the respondents are obliged to act fairly, reasonably, and in accordance with law, which they have failed do discharge.

9. The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner submitted as follows:- The petitioner, possessing all requisite qualifications including a Diploma in Surveying and more than eight years’ practical experience, was duly permitted to appear in the written examination. Upon due scrutiny, his candidature was accepted, and he was successful in the written test. The petitioner was originally called for interview on 15.07.2013 and placed at Serial No. 4 in the first interview list. The said interview was cancelled for reasons undisclosed to the petitioner. This cancellation was due to the respondents’ own lapses, not due to any fault or negligence on the part of the petitioner. A second interview was rescheduled on 22.10.2013, but the petitioner’s name was omitted. By letter dated 13.09.2013, the respondents cancelled the earlier call letter regarding interview alleging the petitioner lacked the requisite 3 years’ practical experience in survey work which was arbitrary, as the petitioner had already furnished experience certificates proving more than 8 years’ of experience. He had also been permitted to appear in the All India Trade Test (Surveyor) under NCVT norms, which itself required 3 years’ prior experience. No stipulation existed in the advertisement requiring 3 years’ experience to be t