Calcutta High Court
Supply Corporation Limited & Others vs Md. Mohidur Rahaman on 7 July, 2014
Author: Samapti Chatterjee
Bench: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, Samapti Chatterjee
ORDER SHEET
APO No.344 of 2013
WP No.875 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
WEST BENGAL ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES
SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED & OTHERS
Versus
MD. MOHIDUR RAHAMAN
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY
AND
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SAMAPTI CHATTERJEE
Date: 7th July, 2014
Mr. Susovan Sengupta, Adv. with
Mr. Sanjay Saha, Adv.
..for the petitioners
Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya, Adv.
..for the respondent
This appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 31st July, 2013 whereby a learned Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition on merits.
Going thorough the records, we find that the respondent-writ petitioner fulfilled the eligibility criteria for participating in the selection process for recruitment to the post of Junior Assistant Manager. The writ petitioner was duly qualified in the written examination as OBC(A)EC candidate. After the written examination, the said writ 2 petitioner appeared at the interview but the authorities concerned did not select the writ petitioner to the post of Junior Assistant Manager although one post was reserved for OBC(A)EC candidate.
Mr. Sengupta, learned Advocate representing the appellants submits that the writ petitioner did not secure the cut off marks at the interview.
Mt. Bhattacharya, learned Advocate representing the respondent-writ petitioner submits that the respondent authorities never fixed any cut off marks for interview and it was an afterthought only to deny appointment to the petitioner to the aforesaid post of Junior Assistant Manager.
The selection process was started by issuing an advertisement on 7th March, 2012. In the said advertisement, the respondent authorities concerned did not mention any cut off marks for the interview. In the present case, the authorities concerned decided to fill up the vacant post of Junior Assistant Manager through written test and interview. There is no dispute that the written test was held on 22nd July, 2012 when the petitioner participated in the said written test and duly qualified. Therefore, the respondent-writ petitioner was asked to appear at the interview by a notice dated 8th August, 2012. In the said notice dated 8th August, 2012, it was also not mentioned by the 3 respondent-writ petitioner that the authorities concerned decided to fix any cut off marks for the interview.
It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the Direct Recruitment Rules were amended by the Essentials Recruitment Board in its meeting held on 8th August, 2012. The relevant extracts of the amended rules for direct recruitment are set out hereunder:
" h) Amendment to the Direct Recruitment Rules:-
For selection through "Written Test and Interview" under Rule 11A to have the candidates of better quality, it is felt needed to keep some qualifying marks. Hence, it is decided that for Selection through "Written Test and Interview" there will be a qualifying marks of 40(forty) taking into account both the marks for Screening Test and Interview i.e. 40% of the total marks of 100, failing to obtain which the candidate will not be considered for recruitment. Recruitment Rule-11 is hereby amended to this extent."
The aforesaid amendment of the Direct Recruitment Rules was never informed to the eligible candidates like the respondent-writ petitioner. The aforesaid amendment of the Direct Recruitment Rules cannot be made applicable to the selection process, which was initiated long before the amendment of the Direct Recruitment Rules. In the present case, selection process was initiated by issuing advertisement on 7th March, 2012 and the decision to amend the Direct Recruitment Rules was taken on 8th August, 2012. Therefore, the aforesaid 4 amendment of Direct Recruitment Rules cannot have any retrospective effect in respect of the selection process which was initiated before the amendment of the Rules. The amended Rules will have the prospective effect and not the retrospective effect since the selection process was started under the old Rules. Furthermore, it is well settled that the rule of a game cannot be changed after the game has started.
Mr. Sengupta relied on a decision reported in (2011) 7 SCC 308 (Barot Vijaykumar Balakrishna & ors. vs. Modh Vinaykumar Dasrathlal & ors.). The principles decided in the aforesaid judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court have no manner of application in the facts of the present case since it is not required under the prevalent Rules to fix any cut off marks in viva voce. The amendment of the Rules cannot have any retrospective effect as we have already observed hereinabove.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. Therefore, this appeal stands dismissed.
The authorities concerned are directed to comply with the directions passed by the learned Single Judge without any further delay but positively within a period of two weeks from date.
In the facts of the present case, there will be no order as to costs.
5
Urgent certified photocopy of this order be made available to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J.) (SAMAPTI CHATTERJEE, J.) AKGoswami