Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Arindam Sen vs Union Of India & Ors on 23 December, 2019
1
Item No. 9
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Jurisdiction
23.12.19
WP No.23408 (W) of 2019
Arindam Sen
v.
Union of India & Ors.
Md. Mokaram Hossain
Mr. Sandipan Maity
... for the petitioner.
Ms. Sabita Roy
... for the respondent no. 1.
Mr. B. Ghosh ... for the Airport Authority.
Pursuant to an advertisement published by the Airports Authority of India for filling up the post of Senior Assistant (Finance) the petitioner applied online in the year 2018. The recruitment was a special drive for persons with disabilities.
The petitioner submits that he appeared in the examination and according to him he performed very well. As the respondents did not issue any appointment letter in his favour the petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act to take necessary information with regard to the marks obtained by him in the examination. The respondent authority in response to the said application made by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act by a communication dated November 7, 2019 intimated the petitioner that no candidate has been selected for the post of Senior Assistant (Finance) as per the eligibility criteria. The petitioner made a further application under the same Act and in response to the said application the petitioner was intimated by a communication dated December 4, 2019 that the highest online CBT mark for the post of Senior Assistant (Finance) is 72 and the petitioner obtained 41 marks.
The petitioner submits that as there is no cut off marks mentioned in the advertisement for recruitment the authorities ought not to fix any cut off marks for giving appointment. Even, though, the petitioner obtained 40 marks no appointment letter was issued in his favour. The petitioner submits that the 2 authority cannot change the eligibility criteria subsequent to the issuance of the advertisement. The authority cannot rely upon any criteria, which is not specifically mentioned in the advertisement.
The learned advocate representing the Airports Authority of India relies upon clause 12 of the general instructions published in the advertisement wherein it has been mentioned that the management reserves the right to fix the standard and specification of screening and calling the number of candidates for online test and for trade test and the decision of the Airports Authority of India regarding eligibility of the candidates; the stages at which such scrutiny of eligibility is to be undertaken; the documents to be produced for the purpose of selection and any other matter relating to recruitment will be final and binding on the candidates.
The respondents submits that the Airports Authority of India has relied upon the Circular No. 10/2016 dated July 26, 2016 which was already in vogue at the time when the advertisement was published wherein it was clarified that the qualifying marks in the written/competitive examination for various posts will be 50% marks for General & OBC candidates and 40% marks for SC & ST candidates.
The respondents further submit that the petitioner fell within the General & OBC category and the minimum marks for being qualified was 50%. As the petitioner obtained less than 50% marks, accordingly, no further steps could be taken in his favour.
Upon hearing submissions made on behalf of both the parties it appears that the petitioner has been rightly intimated that no person could be appointed for the post in question as nobody was found eligible. As the petitioner scored less than 50% marks in the written test he was considered ineligible for appointment. According to the instruction published in the advertisement the authority reserved their right to fix the standard for selection which they have done in accordance with a circular which was prevailing at the relevant time. It is well within the jurisdiction of the employer to fix a benchmark for selecting the 3 best candidate. The employer fixed the benchmark of 50% in accordance with the circular of 2016.
There is no apparent error in the recruitment process. A candidate securing less marks than the prescribed qualifying marks cannot claim appointment. No legal right of the petitioner appears to have been infringed. There is no merit in the instant writ petition. The writ petition being WP No. 23408(W) of 2019 fails and is hereby dismissed.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties after completion of all legal formalities.
sh ( Amrita Sinha, J.)