Cut-Off Marks Can't Be Introduced Midway In Recruitment; Similarly Placed Candidates Entitled To Same Relief: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that recruiting authorities cannot introduce qualifying or cut-off marks for interview after commencement of the selection process, and once such illegality is struck down in respect of one candidate, other similarly placed candidates must ordinarily be granted the same benefit to avoid discrimination under Article 14.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Prasenjit Biswas directed the West Bengal Public Service Commission to recommend the petitioner's name for appointment to the post of Krishi Prayukti Sahayak, noting that he had secured higher aggregate marks than the last selected candidate in his category and was denied recommendation solely due to an illegally introduced interview cut-off.
The petitioner, an unsuccessful candidate in the recruitment process for the post of Krishi Prayukti Sahayak, had participated in a selection comprising a written examination of 150 marks and an interview of 15 marks. The advertisement prescribed qualifying marks only for Part II of the written test and did not stipulate any cut-off for the interview.
Despite this, the Commission introduced qualifying marks for the interview midway through the process. The petitioner secured 81.75 aggregate marks, which was higher than the last selected candidate in the Scheduled Caste category who had obtained 81.50 marks. However, he was not recommended because he failed to secure the subsequently fixed qualifying marks in the interview.
Earlier, another candidate from the same recruitment, Pritam Ghosal, had successfully challenged the introduction of interview cut-offs before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal held the move arbitrary and illegal, and directed his recommendation. That order was later affirmed by the High Court.
Court's Findings
The Bench noted that the issue had already been conclusively decided in the earlier round of litigation. Since the Tribunal and the High Court had held that fixing qualifying marks for interview after issuance of the advertisement was “improper, arbitrary and illegal,” the Commission could not seek to justify the same yardstick again in the present case.
The Court observed that once a selection rule is declared illegal, authorities are expected to extend the benefit of such declaration to all similarly situated candidates rather than compel each to litigate separately. Denial of parity would amount to discrimination.
Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Arvind Kumar Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Bench reiterated that relief granted to one set of employees must ordinarily be extended to identically placed persons, except in cases of delay, laches or acquiescence.
Allowing the writ petition, the Court directed the Commission to recommend the petitioner's name within eight weeks and ordered the State authorities to issue an appointment within a further eight weeks.
Case: Nirmal Chandra Biswas v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case No.: WPST 137 of 2025