2026 WPA 28426 of 2024

21 Basid Hassan sdas Vs.

(DISMISSED) The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Anindya Bose, Mr. Santanu Maji, Ms. Debrani Mondal Ms. Raina Das …...for the Petitioner Ms. Sayantanee Bhattacharjee ..….. for the State Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, ld. Sr.S.C Ms. Tapati Samanta, ……for the respondent no. 5

1. The petitioner had applied for the post of District Librarian under the local Library Authority, Malda. The advertisement was made on 29.05.2023. There are three rounds of qualification for ultimate selection. The first round is a written examination, the second is an examination to check the basic knowledge of the aspirant in computer operations and the third is the interview process.

2. The petitioner had succeeded in the first round and had appeared for the second round, in which he had procured 2 marks and been called for the third round, which is the interview. However, after the interview round, the petitioner was unsuccessful and has filed this writ-petition thereafter challenging the interview process as well as the fact that he was not recommended in the first or the second merit list published by the authorities.

3. The petitioner had made an application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, on the basis whereof, on 21.11.2024, the petitioner was informed that his score in the Computer Test Examination (second round) was 2 out of 10. Thus, the petitioner was not recommended either in the first or the second merit list.

4. Mr. Bose, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that since the petitioner was called for the interview round, it can be assumed that the petitioner had qualified in the second round and was eligible for the third round. Thus, there is no justifiable reason as to why the petitioner should not be recommended in the first or the second merit list.

5. Mr. Bose has also placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2011) 7 SCC 308 (Barot Vijaykumar Balakrishna & Ors. Vs. Modh. Vinaykumar Dasrathlal & Ors.) to buttress his point that in a similar matter where the cut off mark in a viva voce was not specified in advertisement, the right course of action would be to fix the cut off mark and notify the candidates called for the interview. This case is distinguishable on facts since in that particular case there was a specific rule that the cut off marks have to be framed and advertised, which is not so in the present case. Cut off marks had been fixed and had a basis, which is pari materia with the pass marks in the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (25 out of 100). Thus, the same parameter has been fixed herein (2.5 out of 10). Thus, the petitioner cannot and indeed does not challenge the cut off marks as fixed. There is absolutely no anomaly in fixing the cut off marks and the alleged non-disclosure of the same cannot be a ground to set aside the entire process, which has already come to an end.

6. It is not the petitioner’s case that the marks given to him in the second round suffers from any administration lapse, bias or malice in law or arbitrariness, but merely that he had not been informed of such cut off marks prior to the stage.

7. Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned senior Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent no. 5, submits that pursuant to the process being undertaken, the advertisement was issued on 29.05.2023 and prior thereto was forwarded to all the concerned authorities on 02.05.2023, the cut-off for the second round had been fixed on the basis of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education pass mark which is 25 out of 100, thereby making the qualifying marks in the second round 2.5 out of 10, being 25% thereof. This was prevalent as on the date of publication of the advertisement and had been duly forwarded to all the concerned authorities under the heading of ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ (FAQ). He further submits that no vested right can be created in favour of any candidate merely because he has been called