Calcutta HC Restores Original Merit List In Police Constable Recruitment 2019; Age Relaxation Doesn't Bar Reserved Category Candidate To Fill General Seat
The Calcutta High Court has allowed a writ petition moved by reserved category candidates in the WB Police Constable Recruitment 2019, whose names were excluded in a revised merit list that was published in 2022 pursuant to the impugned judgment by the WB State Administrative Tribunal (“SAT”).The Bench restored the original merit list that quashed by SAT, in which reserved candidates...
The Calcutta High Court has allowed a writ petition moved by reserved category candidates in the WB Police Constable Recruitment 2019, whose names were excluded in a revised merit list that was published in 2022 pursuant to the impugned judgment by the WB State Administrative Tribunal (“SAT”).
The Bench restored the original merit list that quashed by SAT, in which reserved candidates who received marks equal to or more than general candidates, were treated as general category candidates.
The 2021 merit list was challenged before the State Tribunal, which held that the Board would have to publish new merit lists comprising i) The unreserved category on merits excluding the candidates who have availed age relaxation, and ii) The reserved categories in accordance with the prevailing laws in force. These lists were published in 2022.
In setting aside the decision of the SAT, and holding that the merit list published in 2021 was in accordance with the provisions of the various State Acts, a division-bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya cancelled the appointments made pursuant to the 2022 merit list and held:
In the case on hand the authorities prepared the original merit list/panel dated 26.03.2021 by placing the meritorious reserved category candidate in the unreserved category irrespective of the fact that they had availed the relaxation in age etc. The direction of the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment to prepare a panel afresh is in effect directing an authority to act de hors the statutory provisions which is not permissible. The names of several candidates of the reserved category which found place in the original merit list, got excluded in the revised merit list/panel published pursuant to the impugned judgment. Therefore, the revised list/panel prepared pursuant to the direction of the learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside and quashed.
Allegations levelled against Recruitment process
The recruitment process which began in 2019 had faced several challenges from candidates (“original applicants”) who claimed that while they had passed the physical evaluation, they had not been informed of the scores of their written test, and no cut-off mark had been fixed for the same.
It was submitted that the final results after the interview were communicated in a way that the candidates were unable know the break-up of their individual marks or the various category-wise cut-offs, thus leading to a violation of various reservation policies.
It was claimed that before the interview, some candidates received communication from the WB Police Recruitment Board ("Board) about the questions which would be allegedly asked during the interview, the composition of the interview board, etc.
Original applicants alleged that the recruitment process was tainted with favouritism and nepotism and that the non-publication of category wise merit lists was illegal since reserved candidates were being selected in the unreserved category without complete transparency in the process.
It was further alleged that at least 97 candidates had been empanelled by the Board even without fulfilling the minimum criterion of being 167 cms tall. It was alleged that RTI information in this regard was denied by the State.
In 2022, the SAT quashed the 2021 merit list and directed for separate merit lists to be compiled for general and reserved categories.
Proceedings before the High Court
Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya for the original applicants claimed that the entire recruitment process was tainted with mala fides, and that the reserved categories candidates should never have been considered against unreserved vacancies in the first place.
Writ petitioners, challenging the order of the Tribunal, argued that there were many candidates whose names had featured on the original 2021 list, but not in the revised 2022 list.
It was submitted that Articles 15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution empowers the State to make provisions for the furtherance of backward classes and in this case the reserved category candidates are entitled to simultaneously avail age relaxation and be accommodated against unreserved vacancies.
AG SN Mookherji for the State, submitted that the original applicants had participated in the interview knowing the circumstances surrounding board compositions being shared, without any protest and that they could not be allowed to challenge the process after being unsuccessful.
It was further argued that merely the fact that lower marks have been assigned in the interview to candidates who had secured higher marks in the written examination does not necessarily mean that the authority had adopted unfair practice.
Court’s Verdict
It was held that the original applicants had failed to plead and prove as to how their rights in the selection process had been affected due to disclosure of names of members of the interview board, and thus such actions did not amount to lack of transparency or nepotism.
Further aspersions on the integrity of the recruitment process raised by the original applicants were found to be unsubstantiated and answered against them,
In perusing the crucial question on whether ‘meritorious’ reserved category candidates could be considered against unreserved vacancies, the Court looked Recruitment criteria in the relevant notification and the WB Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Posts) Act, 1976 (“the 1976 Act”) WB Backward Classes (other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Reservation of Vacancies in Service and Posts) Act 2012 (“the 2012 Act”).
It was held that the relaxations given to the reserved category candidates as per the Recruitment Notification are prior to the participation in the open competition. Such relaxations, in the considered view of this Court, pertain to the eligibility of a candidate to appear in the open competition. The relaxations in the Recruitment Notification are given at the preliminary stage and therefore, cannot have any relevance in determining the merit of the candidates participating in the open completion. The authorities were thus justified in allowing migration of the candidates of the reserved categories to the unreserved posts despite such candidates availing relaxation in age etc.
Court held that once a reserved category candidate participates in the written examination and interview secures more marks than the last candidate selected from the Unreserved category, it would immaterial as to which category such candidate belongs.
This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that the authorities could not have been faulted for placing the 401 reserved category candidates who had availed age relaxation in the unreserved category, it was held.
In conclusion, the Court noted that the appointment of all those candidates who did not feature in the original merit list of 2021, but were appointed basis the 2022 revised merit list was liable to be cancelled, and their posts deemed vacant.
Further directions were made to restore the appointments of those reserved category candidates whose names were excluded from the 2022 list, as well as to fill up the resultant vacancies in accordance with the 2021 merit list.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 300
Case: Pravash Dalui And Ors Vs State Of West Bengal And Ors
Case No: WP.ST/30/2022