IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty &

The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen FMA 563 of 2024 Priyanka Dam -Versus-

West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Ors..

For the Appellant : Mr. Pradip Kumar Tarafdar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sambuddha Dutta, Mr. Aritra Palit.

For the WBSEDCL : Mr. Sumit Kumar Panja, Mr. Sujit Sankar Koley.

For the respondent : Mr. Saibal Kumar Acharya, nos. 9 & 10 Ms. Susmita Chatterjee, Mr. Masum Tarafdar.

Hearing is concluded on : 6^th February, 2025. Judgment On : 18^th March, 2025.

Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred challenging a judgment dated

07.09.2022 passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition being WPA 26657 of 2014 preferred by one Priyanka Dam (hereinafter referred to as Priyanka) inter alia praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondents to give her appointment and to allow her to join in the post of Assistant Manager (Human Resource and Administration) [hereinafter referred to as AM (HR&A)] under the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Committee Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as WBSEDCL).

2. Priyanka’s case is that while she was pursuing her post-graduation degree in the Indian Institute of Social Welfare and Business Management (in short, IISWBM), campus interviews were conducted by WBSEDCL on 05.03.2013 and 06.03.2013 for the purpose of recruiting students to the post of AM (HR&A) under WBSEDCL. Thereafter vide memo dated 04.04.2013, the final result of the campus interviews was intimated to the Placement Manager IISWBM by the General Manager (Human Resource and Administration) [hereinafter referred to as GM (HR&A)]. In the said memo, her name was at serial no. 7 and as directed, she submitted her certificates on 27.08.2013. Thereafter, a list of five candidates was published calling them for medical test. No reason was furnished as to why she had been left out though admittedly there were a large number of vacancies. Aggrieved thereby, she submitted repeated representations but in vain and as such she was constrained to prefer the writ petition.

3. Records reveal that by an order dated 31.03.2015, the writ Court directed WBSEDCL to file a report. Pursuant thereto, a report was filed on 10.04.2015 stating inter alia that the Board of Directors of WBSEDCL in its meeting held on 12.11.2011 approved fresh intake of 2378 vacancies. Thereafter, a decision was taken to fill up thirty posts of AM (HR&A) – ten to be filled up through campus recruitment and twenty to be filled up from the open market. For such campus recruitment one Special Selection Committee (in short, SSC) was constituted to decide the mode and parameters of selection. In its meeting dated 29.01.2013 the said SSC finalized the modalities for conducting recruitment through off campus selection and vide memo dated 13.02.2013, the GM (HR&A) requested IISWBM and four other institutes to depute their candidates who meet the eligibility criteria. Thereafter, a three-layered selection process namely, written test (in short, WT), group discussion (in short, GD) and personal interview (in short, PI) rounds were held and the SSC recommended twenty-two candidates, who had secured cut-off marks. All the twenty-two recommended candidates belonged to general category. Priyanka’s name featured at serial no. 12 in the merit list. As there were ten vacancies, she did not come within the zone of consideration and could not be appointed.

4. Thereafter the writ petition was again heard on 13.08.2015 and a second report was filed on behalf of the respondents on 26.08.2015 stating inter alia that by a memo dated 13.02.2013 the selection process was initiated. The layers of selection stated to be ‘1^st layer of selection: written test’, ‘2nd layer of selection: group discussion’ and ‘final layer of selection: personal interview’ were detailed in the said report. In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said report,