Click the Play button to listen to article

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed two writ petitions challenging a promotion process conducted by Coal India Limited (CIL), holding that the uniform award of marks to all candidates for 19 questions found to be erroneous or outside the syllabus did not amount to changing the “rules of the game” after commencement of the selection process.

Justice Amrita Sinha observed that since there was no negative marking in the Computer Based Test, awarding marks uniformly to all candidates in respect of the disputed questions did not prejudice any candidate.

The Court was hearing petitions filed by employees of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., a subsidiary of CIL, challenging their exclusion from the final list for promotion from the non-executive to executive cadre.

The selection process originated in a 2015 notification inviting applications for promotion to the executive cadre. The written examination conducted in January 2016 was subsequently cancelled because of shortcomings attributable to the agency conducting the selection.

A fresh Computer Based Test was eventually held on July 31, 2021, with the same set of eligible candidates and on the same syllabus. The petitioners successfully cleared the written examination and were subsequently shortlisted for interview.

Following publication of the model answer key, CIL invited objections from candidates through a Response Query Management Portal. While some petitioners raised objections, others did not.

After considering the objections, the examining body found 19 questions to be either erroneous or outside the syllabus and decided to award marks for those questions to all candidates, irrespective of whether they had attempted them.

The petitioners were shortlisted for interview but ultimately failed to secure sufficient marks for inclusion in the final merit list. The cut-off for the unreserved category was 144.88, whereas the petitioners scored below the cut-off.

The petitioners argued that the examining agency had altered the marking pattern without informing the candidates. According to them, awarding marks even to candidates who had not attempted the disputed questions violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

They contended that candidates who attempted the disputed questions and those who did not attempt them constituted distinct classes and ought not to have been treated identically.

The petitioners also relied upon the Supreme Court's decisions in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, among others, to contend that the rules governing a selection process cannot be altered after the selection has commenced.

Opposing the petitions, CIL submitted that the selection had been conducted centrally in accordance with the applicable cadre scheme and notified procedure.

It argued that the 19 disputed questions were referred to subject experts and, after they were found to be erroneous or outside the syllabus, full marks were uniformly awarded to all candidates in order to maintain parity.

CIL further contended that the petitioners had participated in the examination and interview without raising any objection to the process and could not challenge it only after failing to secure promotion.

The Court was also informed that 109 candidates had been selected and promoted pursuant to the process and had been functioning in their promotional posts since 2022. None of the successful candidates had been impleaded in the writ petitions.

Uniform award of marks did not prejudice candidates

Rejecting the challenge, Justice Sinha noted that there was no negative marking in the examination. Marks were awarded only for correctly answered questions and a candidate would not lose marks merely for attempting a question incorrectly.

Therefore, when marks for the disputed questions were uniformly awarded to every candidate, the Court found that no candidate had been prejudiced.

“Had wrong answers carried negative marking, then only there would have been some difference in the competitiveness of the candidates,” the Court observed.

The Court further held that the petitioners' contention that the 19 questions were actually correct and within the syllabus could not be adjudicated by the writ court. That determination fell within the domain of expert examiners, who had concluded that the questions were erroneous or outside the syllabus.

'Change in rules of game' principle not attracted

The Court acknowledged that the principle that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has begun is well settled.

However, it held that the principle was not attracted in the present case because the uniform award of marks did not confer any additional advantage on one class of candidates over another.

“Had marks been awarded to only those candidates who attempted the disputed questions, then an issue of prejudice or discrimination could have been raised,” the Court said.

The Court also rejected the argument that candidates who attempted the disputed questions and those who did not attempt them constituted separate classes requiring different treatment. Since the marks were awarded uniformly, neither class received an advantage or suffered a disadvantage.

Court declines to reopen promotion process after four years

Justice Sinha also took note of the fact that the promotion process had been concluded in 2022 and the successful candidates had already served in their promotional posts for more than four years.

Any order interfering with the selection list, the Court held, could adversely affect those promotees, who had not been impleaded as parties.

Such an order, passed behind their back, would offend the principles of natural justice.

The Court further observed that the petitioners had participated in the selection process and challenged the promotion process only after failing to secure a position in the final merit list.

Referring to the settled principle that a candidate who consciously participates in a selection process cannot subsequently challenge its method and outcome after being unsuccessful, the Court held that interference at such a belated stage would not be appropriate.

'Fair and balanced approach' adopted by CIL

The Court concluded that CIL had not acted arbitrarily or illegally.

It found that the examining body had adopted a “reasonable and balanced approach” by uniformly awarding marks after considering objections to the disputed questions, thereby ensuring that no candidate was unfairly affected.

“The petitioners have failed to make out any case to show that the act of the respondents in conducting the promotion process was in any manner arbitrary or illegal,” the Court held.

Holding that the authority had adopted a fair and balanced approach in concluding the promotion process, the Court dismissed both writ petitions.

Case:  Ganesh Tiwari & Anr. Vs. The Coal India Limited & Ors.

Case No: WPO No. 3171 of 2022

Click here to read order