Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Flawed Recruitment Process: ‘Arbitrary Exclusion Unjustified,’ Orders Candidate’s Immediate Appointment
Kiran Raj
The High Court at Calcutta, Division Bench comprising Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen, issued a directive in an appellate matter concerning the recruitment process conducted by the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (WBSEDCL). The judgment, dated March 18, 2025, set aside a previous judgement and directed the appointment of the appellant to the post of Assistant Manager (Human Resource and Administration) (AM (HR&A)).
The case originated from a writ petition filed by Priyanka Dam, challenging the recruitment process of WBSEDCL for the position of AM (HR&A). The appellant claimed that the selection process was altered after its commencement, leading to only the marks obtained in the personal interview (PI) being considered, while disregarding the marks secured in the written test (WT) and group discussion (GD). Priyanka participated in campus recruitment conducted by WBSEDCL in March 2013, where she was shortlisted based on her performance. However, despite fulfilling all the requirements, she was not included in the final selection list, prompting her to file multiple representations before approaching the court.
WBSEDCL, in its defense, contended that the selection process was transparent and predetermined. According to reports filed before the court, the recruitment process comprised three stages: WT, GD, and PI. A total of 22 candidates qualified for the final round, but only 10 were selected for appointment. Priyanka, placed at serial number 12, did not fall within the zone of consideration.
The respondent company further stated that a work order was issued to M/s Nicco Ventures Ltd. for conducting recruitment, and it was predetermined that the final merit list would be based solely on performance in PI. However, the appellant contended that this criterion was not communicated in the initial recruitment notification and was only disclosed during the later stages of the selection process. It was further asserted that such an alteration affected her prospects unfairly, as her performance in the earlier stages placed her among the highest-ranking candidates.
The court examined various correspondences, including the memo dated April 4, 2013, which listed Priyanka among the selected candidates at serial number 7, and subsequent notifications that omitted her name from the final selection. The appellant stated that no explanation was provided for her exclusion, even though she met all prescribed criteria and there were adequate vacancies available.
Documents submitted by WBSEDCL indicated that 59 candidates had initially applied, and multiple rounds of assessment were conducted. While the initial recruitment criteria prescribed WT, GD, and PI as determining factors, WBSEDCL later considered only PI for final selection. This, the appellant contended, was an arbitrary and post facto modification that deprived her of fair evaluation.
The court observed that a fundamental alteration in the selection process had occurred after it had commenced, which directly impacted the appellant’s candidature. It was noted that “if a single test comprises of different parts or even an examination comprises of different tests, it is elementary that the result of the test would be a summation of the marks scored in those tests.” The court recorded that while the written test carried 60 marks and the group discussion 30 marks, only the interview marks (100 marks) were considered for final selection, which led to anomalies in the recruitment process.
The Division Bench examined various documents, including score sheets and selection lists, which demonstrated that Priyanka had performed better than some selected candidates in the written test. However, her omission from the final appointment list resulted from WBSEDCL’s decision to rely solely on interview performance.
The court stated that “the procedure adopted by the respondents in conducting the selection process only upon taking into consideration the marks obtained in the interview and altering the procedure and parameters towards selection subsequent to commencement of the selection process reek of irrationality.”
Additionally, the court found that Priyanka had secured 38 marks in WT, surpassing two of the selected candidates who had scored lower in that segment but were given higher PI scores. The court noted that “a candidate who obtained the lowest marks in WT could be raised to the topmost position in the merit list by an inordinately high marking in the PI,” thereby violating the principles of fairness and merit-based selection.
The respondents had argued that Priyanka’s participation in the process precluded her from challenging it. However, the court rejected this contention, stating that “the principle of estoppel cannot override the law,” and participation in the selection process did not mean acceptance of any subsequent illegalities.
The judgment also discussed relevant legal precedents that stated the necessity of maintaining a fair and transparent selection process. The court referenced multiple Supreme Court decisions that held that any deviation from pre-announced recruitment criteria would vitiate the process and render it legally unsustainable.
The Bench further noted that administrative discretion must be exercised reasonably and within legally defined parameters. The judgment referred to well-established principles in recruitment law, reiterating that “any departure from declared norms, particularly after the process has commenced, is impermissible.”
In its final order, the High Court at Calcutta set aside the judgment of the single-judge bench and directed WBSEDCL to appoint the appellant within four weeks. The court stated that while the appointments of the already selected candidates would not be disturbed, Priyanka could be accommodated in an existing vacancy. The order stated: “For the reasons discussed above, the judgment impugned in the present appeal is set aside and the respondents are directed to grant appointment to the appellant in the post of AM (HR&A) within a period of four weeks from date.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Pradip Kumar Tarafdar, Senior Advocate, Mr. Sambuddha Dutta, Mr. Aritra Palit
For WBSEDCL: Mr. Sumit Kumar Panja, Mr. Sujit Sankar Koley
For Respondent Nos. 9 & 10: Mr. Saibal Kumar Acharya, Ms. Susmita Chatterjee, Mr. Masum Tarafdar
Case Title: Priyanka Dam v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: FMA 563 of 2024
Bench: Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty, Justice Partha Sarathi Sen
[Read/Download order]
