Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Sovona Bhattacharjee vs Coal India Limited And Others on 17 March, 2015
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
1
Sl. 94
17.03.2015.
S.d.
W. P 6478(W) of 2015
Smt. Sovona Bhattacharjee
. -versus-
Coal India Limited and others.
Mr. Gokul Chakrborty
Mr. R. Basu
Mr. Amajit De
..for the petitioner.
Mr. Tilok Kumar Bose, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Aniruddha Mitra
Mr. Partha Basu
Mr. Nikhil Kumar Roy
....for the Respondents
.
The primary grievance of the petitioner is hostile discrimination. The secondary grievance of the petitioner is not strictly found in the petition but has to be taken note of once it is apparent in this extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The petitioner put in an application for the post of Principal(Senior Officer) Nursing School for which candidates were sought by Coal India Limited.
The petitioner refers to the eligibility criteria and says that though the petitioner possessed the educational qualifications and experience necessary for the post and the petitioner also met the 2 age criterion, the petitioner has not been called for the interview. The petitioner also complains of the selection being undertaken only by way of an interview though such aspect of the matter is not expressly referred to in the petition.
The relevant clause in the notice inviting applications requires M.Sc in nursing with 60% marks together with six years' full-time teaching experience in a nursing college or school; or, B.Sc in nursing with 60% marks together with eight years' full-time teaching experience in a nursing college or school. The educational qualifications stipulate that the relevant degree ought to have been obtained by way of a regular course. The petitioner obtained her bachelor's degree from the Indira Gandhi National Open University under the distance education programme in the year 2006. The petitioner obtained her master's degree from a university in Madhya Pradesh in the regular course in 2011. There is no dispute that the petitioner obtained the requisite marks in the master's course.
The respondents say that the petitioner was not called for the interview since the petitioner obtained her master's degree in the 2011 and the petitioner did not have the minimum experience of six years of full-time teaching experience after completion of her master's degree.
The relevant clause in the notice inviting applications does not require eight years' full-time teaching experience after completion of 3 the bachelor's degree or six years' full-time teaching experience after completion of the master's degree. Since the petitioner demonstrated in her application that she had at least six years' full- time teaching experience in a nursing college or school and such experience was even prior to her obtaining her master's degree, it cannot be said that the petitioner did not meet the relevant eligibility criterion for the petitioner's candidature being considered for selection. The petitioner ought to have been called for the interview.
The respondents say that since the names of the short-listed candidates had been published quite some time back and the interviews were slated to be held on March 16 and March 17, 2015, the petitioner's belated application to disrupt the process should not be entertained.
Ordinarily, such ground would have appealed; but it is evident that the petitioner was prevented from moving the petition on March 16, 2015 because of the ceasework called by the Bar Council of India and the two days prior thereto were the weekend holidays.
In any event, when a glaring case of discrimination is demonstrated, the marginal delay or inconvenience to the respondents may not be a relevant factor. The qualifications relevant for the post did not stipulate that the work experience of six years' for a master's candidate ought to be six years full-time 4 teaching experience in nursing college or school after she obtained her masters' course. In such circumstances, the petitioner's candidature ought to have been considered and not rejected.
However, the more important aspect is the selection process which the petitioner is entitled to participate in. It is surprising that it is lost on Coal India Limited, which touts itself as a Maharatna public sector undertaking, that any process of selection for appointment has to have a degree of transparency. Judicial pronouncements for decades have required a larger element of objectivity to be introduced in the selection process so that nepotism and other corrupt practices are kept to the minimum. It is baffling that a principal in a nursing school run by Coal India Limited would be appointed only on the basis of an interview without there being any element of objectivity in the selection process.
WP 6478(W) of 2015 is allowed by holding that the petitioner's candidature ought to be considered for the post for which applications were invited. However, the selection process to be undertaken of the short-listed candidates cannot be on the basis of the interview alone. Accordingly, without disturbing the applications that have otherwise been received for the post, the selection process to be undertaken is modified by requiring at least 80% marks in the selection process to be allotted for any written 5 examination that can be assessed on an objective basis and a maximum of 20 % marks to be allotted for any interview.
It will also be open to the respondents to consider the candidature of similarly placed persons as the petitioner and allow such persons to participate in the selection process which has to be conducted on the basis as indicated above.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Sanjib Banerjee, J.)