Ashis Pan, Ashis Pan vs W.B.S.E.D.C.L. & Ors

Amrita Sinha, J.

The petitioner is an unsuccessful candidate in a competitive examination held by the West Bengal Electricity Distribution Company Limited and West

Bengal State Electricity Transmission Company Limited. An advertisement was published on 1st May, 2007 inviting applications for various posts. The

petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (IT/Computer Science). A written test was held and being successful the petitioner was asked to

appear for an interview before the selection board. Final list of successful candidates was published wherein the name of the petitioner did not figure

in the list. A third list of successful candidates was also published in the website of the company wherein the name of the petitioner had not been

included.

The petitioner submits that when contacted the authorities requested the petitioner to wait for some time and thereafter contact the authorities as

further list of successful candidates would be uploaded in their website. As per the assurance the petitioner waited for a considerable period of time

but thereafter noticed that another advertisement for recruitment for various posts in the same company had been published in the newspaper on 30th

November, 2007. The petitioner through his learned Advocate made a demand justice enquiring about the status of the panel of the earlier examination

and whether the petitioner will be appointed in the post in which he had applied.

The petitioner has annexed a list of candidates as annexure P-6 and claims that the list contained the names of successful candidates and as the name

of the petitioner figured at roll no. 114 accordingly appointment letter ought to be issued in his favour. The petitioner alleges that the marks obtained by

him in the written test as well as the interview ought to have been disclosed to him under separate heads so as to enable him to verify the same.

The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 5 relies upon the affidavit in opposition affirmed by the additional general

manager (HR and A) West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and SCC-1 of the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution

Company Limited wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement dated 1st May, 2007 had been

conducted by IIT Kharagpur who prepared the comparative merit list of the selected candidates and handed over the same to the respondents.

In the advertisement it was specifically mentioned that selection would be made on the basis of performance of the written test and interview and

filling up of the declared post will be subject to compliance of the reservation rules framed by the Government. It further stated that five sets of final

lists were prepared and appointments were made strictly in accordance with the merit list. It was stated that the position of the petitioner in the merit

list was 43 whereas the last candidate in the general category recruited in the post secured the 25th position. The petitioner being at the bottom of the

merit list was not entitled to be appointed in the post in question. She prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

The learned Advocate for the respondents relies upon the judgment delivered in the case of Dhananjay Malik & Ors. vs State of Uttaranchal & Ors.

AIR 2008 SC 1913 and the decision delivered in the case of Ram Prasad Chowdhury & Ors. vs The Chief Justice of High Court & Ors. reported in

2006 (1) CLJ (CAL) 516 in support of her case on the proposition that unsuccessful candidates have no right to challenge the recruitment process.

Upon hearing the submission made on behalf of both the parties it is absolutely clear that the petitioner being an unsuccessful candidate has

approached this Hon’ble Court by filing the writ petition on the plea that his name had been included in the list of successful candidates annexed at

pages 67 and 68 of the writ petition. The list at page 67 clearly indicates the date and time of interview of the candidates who were successful in the

written examination. The list had been prepared in accordance with the roll number of the candidates in their ascending order. The said list is certainly

not the final merit list of the successful candidates.

The petitioner has not alleged mala fide, bias or ulterior motive on the part of the respondents in conducting the selection procedure. The petitioner has

also not made any allegation against any particular candidate who had been favoured with appointment. It seems that it is a desperate attempt on the

part of the petitioner to mislead the Court by referring to pages 67 and 68 and submitting that the same is the final merit list in accordance with which

the appointment was to be given in favour of the successful candidates.

The petitioner only on the basis of his assumption that he had fared well in the interview filed the instant writ. The petitioner has not been able to

canvass any illegality on the part of the respondents in the process of selection. The petitioner though was successful in the written exams but was not

able to match the merit of the other contesting candidates hence his name appeared far below the last candidate who was selected for the post.

In fact as many as five lists incorporating the names of the successful candidates were published but even then the petitioner did not get through. No

legal and/or fundamental right of the petitioner appear to be infringed in the process. The writ petition has been filed without any substantive allegation

only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. The writ petition is absolutely devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Urgent

certified photo copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.