Safiya Malik

The Calcutta High Court Division Bench of Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Prasenjit Biswas held that a recruiting authority cannot introduce qualifying marks for an interview after the selection process has commenced, and that once such a practice is declared unlawful in respect of one candidate, other candidates who are similarly placed must be extended the same benefit to prevent discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court directed the West Bengal Public Service Commission to recommend for appointment to the post of Krishi Prayukti Sahayak a candidate who had secured aggregate marks exceeding those of the last selected candidate in his reserved category but had been denied recommendation solely on account of an interview cut-off introduced midway through the process.

The writ petition arose from a recruitment process for the post of Krishi Prayukti Sahayak. The petitioner and another candidate were unsuccessful applicants who challenged the introduction of qualifying marks in the interview stage. As per the advertisement, the written examination comprised 150 marks, divided into Part I (120 marks) and Part II (30 marks), with 15 marks allotted for interview. No cut-off marks were prescribed for Part I or the interview, while qualifying marks were prescribed only for Part II.

Also Read: Bail Principles For Heinous Offences Equally Applicable To Serious Economic Crimes : Supreme Court

The other candidate secured higher aggregate marks than the last selected candidate in his category but was denied recommendation due to failure to secure qualifying interview marks introduced during the selection process. The Tribunal set aside the introduction of such interview cut-off marks and directed recommendation and appointment. That order was affirmed in writ proceedings before the High Court.

In the present case, the petitioner secured 81.75 aggregate marks, which was higher than the last selected candidate in his Scheduled Caste category, who had secured 81.50 marks. However, he was not recommended as he did not meet the qualifying interview marks fixed at 5 for his category. The respondents contended that he failed to qualify in the interview, while the petitioner sought parity with the similarly placed candidate.

The Bench recorded that “when an advertisement was issued fixing cut off marks for part-II of the written examination only, it was improper and illegal to fix cut off marks in the interview subsequently.” It further recorded that “fixing of cut off marks for the interview subsequent to the part-I and part-II examination is arbitrary and illegal and cannot be sustained and is therefore set aside and quashed.”

While referring to the earlier writ proceedings, the Court reproduced that “the writ petitioners did not prescribe any qualifying marks to the interview prior to the commencement of the interview.” It noted that “a cut off mark was prescribed after conclusion of the interview” and that “this prescription of the cut off mark subsequent to the interview obviously was not communicated to the candidates participating in the interview prior to the commencement of the interview.” The earlier Bench had recorded, “we find not reason to interfere with the impugned order of the tribunal.”

On the issue of parity, the Court referred to the legal principles governing extension of relief and extracted that “the normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit.” It also recorded that “not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” The Court further reproduced that “this principle is subject to well-recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence.”

Applying these principles, the Bench recorded, “there is no issue of any delay and latches coming in the way of grant of benefits to the petitioner.” It further observed that “there is no factual foundation for such inference to be drawn in the present case” regarding the plea that the petitioner was a fence sitter. The Court recorded that “there is no basis whatsoever to deny the petitioner parity” with the candidate who had already secured relief.

Also Read: Oral Testimony Cannot Sustain Conviction For Damaging Public Property Without Seizure, Identification Or Expert Proof Of Damage: Calcutta High Court

The Court directed that “the respondent No. 2, Public Service Commission” shall “recommend the name of the applicant for the post of Krishi Prayukti Sahayak to the Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of West Bengal - respondent no. 1 within eight weeks from the date of presentation of a copy of this order downloaded from the internet/website. After his name is recommended, the respondent no. 1 shall appoint him within eight weeks. The application is allowed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Victor Chatterjee, Mr. Barnamoy Basak, Ms. Shreya Bhattacharjee

For the Respondents: Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Ld. AGP, Mr. Somnath Naskar; Ms. Shraboni Sarkar, Ms. Umme Habiba Khatun

Case Title: Nirmal Chandra Biswas Vs State of West Bengal And Ors.

Case Number: WPST 137 of 2025

Bench: Justice Madhuresh Prasad, Justice Prasenjit Biswas