Sudeep Banerjee v. Union Of India And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTION WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL) WP.CT/23/2025 SUDEEP BANERJEE ... PETITIONER VS.
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS For the petitioner : Mr. Rajinder Singh Ms. Archana Devi For the respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Heard on : December 10, 2025 Judgment on : December 10, 2025 HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.
1.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated January 07, 2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata (for short "The Tribunal") in OA/351/00473/2019. By the judgment and order impugned, the original application (for short "O.A.") stood dismissed.
2.
The respondent authorities issued a Recruitment Notification on April 20, 2015 for appointment to the post of Craft Instructor
under the Directorate of Education, Andaman and Nicobar Administration. The said notification was followed by a corrigendum dated April 22, 2015. The petitioner applied for the said post pursuant to the said notification and participated in the said selection process. The petitioner claims to have qualified in the academic score as well as in the Skill/Trade test. However, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he obtained only 9.32 marks out of 20 marks in the Skill/Trade test. 3.
Mr. Rajinder Singh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that prior to the commencement of the selection process, the authorities did not fix any qualifying marks in the Skill/Trade test. He submits that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected by taking aid of cut off marks fixed for the Trade/Skill test after commencement of the selection process. Mr. Singh referred to the academic score of the petitioner and contended that the authorities acted illegally and malafide by awarding only 9.32 marks in the Skill/Trade test.
4.
In support of the contention that the cut off marks could not have been fixed after initiation of the selection process, Mr. Singh, learned advocate for the petitioner, places reliance upon a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Tej Prakash Pathak & others vs. Rajasthan High Court and others reported at 2024 INSC 847. He further places reliance upon a decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandra Iyer and others vs. Union of India reported at AIR 1984 SC 541, in support of his contention that a candidate could not have been eliminated only on the ground that he could not obtain qualifying marks in the Skill/Trade test.
5.
Per contra Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent authorities contended that prior to commencement of the selection process, a decision was taken by the concerned authority on April 08, 2015 that a candidate must obtain 50% marks to qualify the Skill/Trade test and also that for the post of Craft Instructor, the weightage of marks between academic merit and skill/trade test would be 80:20.
6.
Mr. Kumar contended that the extant rules is silent as to what percentage of the total marks for the Skill/Trade test should be the qualifying marks for the post of Craft Instructor. He further contended that if the extant rule is silent, administrative instructions can be issued to fill up the gaps with regard to the procedural aspect in the matter of conduct of a selection process. In support of such contention, he places reliance upon paragraphs 31 to 39 of the decision in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak and others (supra). 7.
In reply Mr. Singh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the file notings cannot be construed to be a decision of the authority with regard to fixation of the qualifying
marks in the Skill/Trade test. In support of such contention, Mr. Singh places reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal and another vs. Sunil Kumar Vaish and others reported at (2011) 8 SCC 670. 8.
Mr. Singh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would contend that though the respondent authorities may have decided to fix the qualifying marks for the Skill/Trade test prior to the commencement of the selection process, neither the recruitment notification nor the corrigendum referred to the percentage fixed as qualifying marks for the said test.
9.
Heard learned advocate for the parties and perused the materials placed.
10.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner participated in the selection process and trade/skill test. It is only after the petitioner was declared unsuccessful by the authorities, the petitioner has chosen to challenge the selection process. It is well settled that an unsuccessful candidate participating in the selection process cannot turn around and challenge the selection process only after being declared unsuccessful in such selection process. 11.
Record reveals that the recruitment notification was issued on April 20, 2015. From the said notification, it is evident that essential educational qualification for the post of Craft Instructor is that
candidate should have Bachelor's Degree in the concerned trade/Craft from a recognized university or Bachelor's Degree with one year Diploma/Certificate Course in the concerned trade/Craft from any recognized University/Board/Nationally Accredited institution and should qualify in the Skill/Trade test. 12.
From the essential qualification indicated in the Recruitment Notification, it is evident that qualifying the Skill/Trade test is an essential requirement for the purpose of selection to the post of Craft Instructor. In paragraph 22 of the Recruitment Notification, it was stated that the selection for the post mentioned in the notification should be made only on the basis of academic weightage of marks as approved by the A & N Administration and no personal interview shall be conducted for the selection.
13.
The said Recruitment Notification was followed by a Corrigendum dated April 22, 2015 and the said serial no.22 of the Recruitment Notification was substituted by the following: "The selection of abovementioned posts shall be made on the basis of academic weightage of marks and marks obtained in skill/trade test as approved by A & N Administration and no personal interview shall be conducted for the selection". 14.
At this stage, it would be relevant to take note that the date of issuance of the application form by the Zonal /other designated officers as per the Recruitment Notification was from April 25, 2015 and the last date for receipt of the application form was May 29, 2015 by 4.30 PM. It is not in dispute that the Corrigendum was issued
much prior to the date of issuance of the application form by the concerned authority.
15.
Thus the petitioner was well aware of the change made to the Recruitment Notification by the Corrigendum dated April 22, 2015. 16.
The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the authority could have changed the procedure for selection midstream. Such issue is no longer res integra. 17.
In Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), the Constitution Bench held that the eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness.
18.
In Tej Prakash Pathak (supra), it was held that the object of selection for entry into a public service is to ensure that a person most suitable for the post is selected and what is suitable for one post may not be for the others. It was further held that a degree of discretion is necessary to be left to the employer to devise its method or procedure to select a candidate most suitable for the post albeit
subject to principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as also the Rules/statute governing service and reserved. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the appointing authority/recruiting authority/competent authority, in the absence of Rules to the contrary, can devise a procedure for selection of a candidate suitable to the post and while doing so it may also set benchmarks for different stages of the recruitment process and interview.
19.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that the respondent authority had the authority to fix qualifying marks for the Skill/Trade test in order to select the most suitable candidate for the post as there is no Rules contrary thereto.
20.
Records reveal that proposal for filling up of vacant posts of Craft Instructor under direct recruitment quota in Education Department of the Andaman and Nicobar Administration was made on April 08, 2015. The number of posts to be notified as well as the criteria/mode of selection was proposed. It appears therefrom that it was proposed that the weightage of marks between academic merit and Skill/Trade test would be 80 and 20 respectively and the candidates must obtain 50% marks to qualify the Skill/Trade test. The date of notification of vacancies, date of issue of application form by the designated officers and the last date of receipt of the application form was also indicated in the said proposal. The
proposal was forwarded for approval of the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor. From the documents annexed to the writ petition it is evident that the proposal made on April 08, 2013 was duly approved by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor prior to issuance of Recruitment Notification.
21.
Though the learned advocate for the petitioner would contend that the procedure for selection was changed after the commencement of the selection process, but records would reveal that the proposal for fixation of the percentage of marks for Skill/Trade test to be the qualifying marks for the post of Craft Instructor i.e 50% marks made on April 08, 2015 was duly approved by the concerned authority prior to publication of the Recruitment Notification.
22.
The Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) dealt with the issue as to whether the qualifying marks can be prescribed contrary to the extant rules and the advertisement. While dealing with such issue, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that there can be no doubt that where there are no Rules or the Rules are silent on the subject, administrative instructions may be issued to supplement and fill in the gaps in the Rules. In that event administrative instructions would govern the field provided they are not ultra vires the provisions of the Rules or the Statute or the
Constitution. But where the Rules expressly or impliedly cover the field, the recruiting body would have to abide by the Rules. 23.
It is not the case of the petitioner that the rules prescribed a particular qualifying marks and that the qualifying marks fixed for the Trade/Skill test by the authority is contrary to the statutory rules. Thus, fixation of the qualifying marks in the Trade/Skill test cannot be said to be ultra vires the provisions of Rules or the Statute or the Constitution.
24.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) held that the Court should be lenient in letting Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant rules, devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure has been transparent, non-discriminatory/non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. 25.
The selection in question relates to the post of the Craft Instructor. Keeping in mind the nature of the job to be performed by the selectee, this Court is of the considered view that fixation of a qualifying marks in the Skill/Trade test cannot be said to be discriminatory or arbitrary. On the other hand, it has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved which is to select the best person having knowledge in the specialized field for which the recruitment process was initiated.
26.
There is no quarrel to the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Vaish (supra) that a noting recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more and merely represents expression of opinion by the particular individual and by no stretch of imagination , such noting can be treated as a decision of the Government. Mr. Singh would contend that file notings do not have any effect in view of the decision in Sunil Kumar Vaish (Supra). In the case on hand, the file noting only reflect the approval given by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor to the proposal forwarded for recruitment. This Court holds that such an approval does not necessitate issuance of a notification as the same is only procedural.
27.
That apart, the decision in the case of Sunil Kumar Vaish (supra) cannot come to the aid of the petitioner in the case on hand as this Court has already observed that the fixation of qualifying marks in the Skill/Trade test relates only to the procedure for selection.
28.
The decision in the case of P.K.Ramachandra Iyer (supra) also cannot come to aid of the petitioner in the case in hand as in that case rejection of the candidate on the ground that they could not obtain minimal qualifying marks at viva voice test was not approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that it contravened the statutory rules.
29.
There is no quarrel to the aforesaid proposition of law but the same cannot apply to the facts of the case on hand. 30.
Petitioner did not raise any issue of bias in the matter of awarding marks in the Skill/Trade test. For such reason this Court cannot permit Mr. Singh to advance such an argument for the first time before this Court.
31.
The learned Tribunal applied the correct legal test and was right in not granting any relief to the petitioner. 32.
This Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal.
Accordingly, WP.CT/23/2025 stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 33.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance of all formalities.
( HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J. ) I agree.
( SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. )