AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prasenjit Mandal, J.—The writ petitioner has filed this application praying for the following reliefs:-
a. A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondent West Bengal College Service Commission to show cause as to why the petitioner shall not be appointed as a Lecturer in Chemistry in the past vacancy or with preference in the present and future vacancy;
b. A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondent West Bengal College Service Commission to show cause as to why the petitioner was not awarded 08 marks even after having obtaining the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Science (Chemistry) for which the petitioner was deprived from being empanelled and thus appointed as a Lecturer in Chemistry;
c. A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondent authority to show cause as to why, if the wrong is set right and the petitioner thus appointed, the petitioner shall not get the seniority from the date the petitioner ought to have been appointed in usual course;
d. A writ of or in the nature of Certiorari do issued commanding the respondent Commission to transmit the relevant records so that conscionable justice may be meted to the petitioner;
e. Pass an order of injunction restraining the Respondent Commission from appointing any person as Lecturer in Chemistry till disposal of the instant writ application;
f. Ad-interim order of injunction in terms of prayer (e) above;
g. Pass such further and/or other order or orders direction or directions as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.
The writ petitioner appeared in the National Eligibility Test conducted by the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research-University Grant Commission and on July 12, 2001 he was declared successful as being eligible for "Lectureship-NET".
On April 27, 2009, the petitioner obtained a Ph.D. degree and then on June 16, 2009, he appeared for interview conducted by the College Service Commission for college under the Burdwan Zone in the year 2009 for the post of Lecturer in Chemistry.
Upon the publication of the result of the interview, the petitioner applied for information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on July 18, 2012 and he got the information that while the petitioner got 63.27 marks out of 100, the last empanelled candidate in the General Category obtained 64.45 marks out of the 100 marks.
The petitioner has contended that the respondent authority has acted in illegal manner and as such, the petitioner has become unsuccessful for being appointed despite having requisite marks. The marks to be allotted on the Ph.D. degree had not been allotted to him and thus, he had been deprived of being appointed as a Lecturer. So, this writ application has been preferred.
Now, the question is whether the respondent authority had acted illegally in not awarding 8 marks for the Ph.D. degree to the petitioner.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that there is no dispute that the petitioner had obtained Ph.D. degree before the date of holding the interview and that he had informed the respondent authority to consider the said Ph.D. degree in awarding marks to him.
Mr. Kamalesh Jha, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has contended that before the date of holding the interview, the petitioner had got the Ph.D. degree and the concerned advertisement does not indicate any date within which the aforesaid qualification is to be taken into consideration and as such, since the petitioner has been able to show the Ph.D. degree before the date of holding the interview, he should have been awarded marks for having the Ph.D. degree.
In support of his contention, Mr. Jha has referred to the decision of Ashok Kumar Sharma and Another Vs. Chander Shekher and Another, and thus, he has submitted that the requirement is deemed to have been fulfilled if it is shown that on the date of interview, the applicant possessed the requisite educational qualification, though he did not possess the said educational qualification on the date of application.
Per contra, Mr. P.R. Mondal, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 3 & 4, has contended that the said decision is no longer in force. He has contended that the decision of Bhupinderpal Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, particularly the paragraph nos. 13 & 14 will be apposite and thus, he has submitted that if the cut-off date is laid down in relevant rules, it has to be followed. Otherwise, it may be prescribed in the advertisement or if no such date is prescribed, the eligibility has to be determined as on the last date of receipt of applications. So, in the instant case, requisite qualification as on the last date of submission of application is to be considered.
Mr. Mondal has also referred to the decision of Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, particularly the paragraph nos. 14 to 20 and thus, he has submitted that in absence of any cut-off date specified in the advertisement or in the rules, the last date for filing the applications must be considered as a cut-off date.
He has also contended that in the instant case, the last date for submission of the applications was on December 31, 2008 whereas the petitioner had obtained the certificate of the Ph.D. degree only on April 27, 2009. Since the service rule does not provide anything in this regard and no cut-off date has been mentioned, the last date of application is to be considered so far as the qualification is concerned.
Admittedly, the petitioner did not have the Ph.D. degree on the last date of submission of the application, i.e., on December 31, 2008.
It is pertinent to mention here that the decision of Ashok Kumar Sharma & anr. (supra) was declared on December 18, 1992 and then a review petition was filed, which was disposed of subsequently and the said review decision had also been published in Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. Chander Shekhar and Another, The decision of Ashok Kumar Sharma and Another Vs. Chander Shekher and Another, Supplementary (2) SCC 611 was considered, but the decision of Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. Chander Shekhar and Another, has been followed in Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra) decided on February 23, 2007.
Mr. Mondal has contended that since the petitioner had no degree on the last date of the submission of the applications, the concerned authority was justified in not awarding marks to the petitioner for his Ph.D. degree and so, the application should be dismissed.
Mr. Jha has submitted in reply that in the instant case, the aforesaid two decisions cited by Mr. Mondal would not be applicable in view of the fact that, those decisions relate to qualifications for appointment. In the instant case, the applicant had the requisite qualification for being selected, but the question is whether he should get additional 8 marks for having the Ph.D. Certificate before the date of holding the interview. Thus, Mr. Jha has submitted that the decisions filed by Mr. Mondal would not be applicable in the instant case.
Having heard the submissions of both the sides on law point and in consideration of the above decisions, I am of the view that since the question of not awarding 8 marks to the petitioner for being appointed as a Lecturer, though having Ph.D. degree before the interview is the matter of consideration, in absence of any specific rule of the respondent authority in this regard and any cut-off date, the decision of Bhupinderpal Singh (supra) and Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra) should be applicable in the instant case and the decision of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) as referred to by Mr. Jha shall not be applicable in the instant case.
When the petitioner submitted his application on December 18, 2008, there was no mention of possessing the Ph.D. degree.
Accordingly, since the petitioner did not obtain the Ph.D. degree on the last date of submission of the application as held above, I am of the view that the respondent authority was justified in not awarding 8 marks as claimed by the petitioner.
So, I am of the view that this application is devoid of merits and is, therefore, dismissed.
Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.