Calcutta High Court: In a case revolving around the interpretation of policies regarding age relaxation and concessions for reserved category candidates during recruitment by the West Bengal Public Service Commission, a Division bench comprising of Debangsu Basak* and Md. Shabbar Rashidi, JJ., upheld the Public Service Commission’s procedure of placing candidates from reserved categories, who have availed relaxation of age and fees as per the Acts and the memorandum, in the unreserved category in the merit list if they qualify on merit. The Court also affirmed the maintainability of the Public Service Commission’s petition challenging the Tribunal’s order.
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, issue revolves around the West Bengal Public Service Commission’s recruitment process for Sub-Inspectors in the Subordinate Food and Supply Service, Grade III, under the Food and Supplies Department of the Government of West Bengal in 2018.
The West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, vide order dated 29-03-2022, refused to set aside the recruitment process but held that reserved category candidates who benefited from age relaxation should not be treated as unreserved category candidates. The Tribunal ordered the preparation of fresh panels for both reserved and unreserved categories. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant preferred writ petitions challenging the same. The Court heard all the 4 writ petitions together, as they all stemmed from the same order dated 29-03-2022, issued by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal.
Contentions of Unsuccessful Candidates
Unsuccessful candidates contended that reserved category candidates who availed of age relaxation should not be treated the same as unreserved category candidates, as the latter did not receive any age relaxation. It was contended that certain exam questions were incorrect and should be awarded full marks, but they had not been provided with the correct answers before the result was published. It was further contended that the criteria for breaking ties in case of equal marks among candidates were not disclosed before the selection process began.
Contentions of Public Service Commission
The Public Service Commission contended that they had issued an advertisement for the recruitment, specifying concessions for reserved category candidates, and outlined the selection process involving a written test and an interview. The Public Service Commission referred to the West Bengal Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Post) Act, 1976, and related government memoranda. The Public Service Commission relied on various legal precedents to support their contention that candidates who obtained age relaxation could be considered in the unreserved category based on merit.
It was contended that the tie-breaking criteria were determined by the Full Commission later in the process. It was further contended that the Public Service Commission cannot be deemed subservient to the government, and the challenge against Public Service Commission’s petition is unfounded.
Contentions of State
The State contended that Public Service Commission’s decision to include candidates who availed age relaxation in the unreserved category is justifiable. It was contended that age relaxation was provided to enable reserved category candidates to compete; it did not lower the standard for selection.
The State stated that the Public Service Commission’s decision is reasonable and should not be interfered with. It was further contended that the Public Service Commission is an independent constitutional body, not subject to government directives unless they violate the law.
Moot Point
Can reserved category candidates in West Bengal compete in the unreserved category after availing of age concessions?
Legal Point
1. Section 4 of the West Bengal Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies in Services and Post) Act, 1976
Prescribes the quantum of reservation for SC and ST candidates in vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment. It also provides for fee waivers for SC/ST candidates and a concession of 5 years in the maximum age limit.
2. Section 5 of the Act of 2012
Prescribes the quantum of reservation for OBC candidates in vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment. It stipulates that OBC candidates qualifying on merit for unreserved posts should not be adjusted against the OBC quota.
3. Memorandum dated January 10, 1997
Issued by the state government, it grants relaxation of three years over the prescribed upper age limit to candidates belonging to the Backward Classes for recruitment to various posts and services under the government.
Court’s Assessment
The Court observed that the PSC advertised the recruitment with specified concessions for reserved category candidates. The PSC included reserved category candidates in the unreserved category based on their merit in comparison to unreserved category candidates.
The Court observed that the Tribunal set aside this placement based on Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service Commission, which held that candidates availing age relaxation in a reserved category cannot migrate to the unreserved category. However, Jitender Kumar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh was cited as a precedent in which age relaxation and fee concessions did not prevent candidates from competing in the unreserved category.
The Court held that the Public Service Commission’s interpretation and application of the laws and the memorandum were valid. The Court noted that candidates from reserved categories, after receiving age and fee relaxation as mandated by the laws, could be considered for the unreserved category based on merit and this interpretation did not infringe upon the quota reserved for the reserved category candidates.
The Court emphasised that relaxation in age and fees should not be equated with obtaining an advantage in the determination of a candidate’s merit. It merely enables candidates from reserved categories to participate in the selection process.
The Court also rejected the contention that the Public Service Commission should have fixed cut-off marks for the written examination before the start of the selection process, as this could lead to impractical results given the large number of applicants. The Court held that the procedure for tiebreak, cut-off marks, and other aspects of the selection process followed by the Public Service Commission were legally valid and transparent.
The Court upheld the Public Service Commission’s approach and set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal directing re-working of the merit list by excluding reserved category candidates from the unreserved category. The Court further clarified that the State’s acceptance of a different procedure in another selection process did not bind the Public Service Commission.
Court’s Decision
The Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the unsuccessful candidates, finding no merit in their contentions. All connected applications were disposed of accordingly.
The Court upheld the Public Service Commission’s interpretation and application of the relevant laws and memorandum. The Court also found the petitions filed by the Public Service Commission to be maintainable and allowed them.
[Sahim Hossain v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2751, order dated 13-09-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Debangsu Basak
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv., Mr. Subir Sanyal, Mr. Dyutimoy Paul, Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, Ms. Shraboni Sarkar, Adv., Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Akash Dutta, Mr. Dibyendu Chatterjee, Mr. Jayanta Kr. Mitra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Anindya Bhattacharya, Mr. Pratik Dhar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ritwik Pattanayak, Counsel for the Respondent
Mr. S. N. Mookherjee, AG, Mr. Tapan Kr. Mukherjee, Ld. A.G.P., Mr. Pinaki Dhole, Mr. Somnath Naskar, Ms. Sangeeta Roy, Counsel for the State
Ms. Shraboni Sarkar, Counsel for the PCS
