Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Partha Shaw & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 July, 2022
8 04-07-2022
AKG
WPA 8587 of 2022
Ct. 21
Partha Shaw & Anr.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Firdous Samim,
Ms. Gopa Biswas,
Ms. Mousumi Hazra
...For the Petitioners
Mr. Pulak Ranjan Mondal,
Ms. Bandana Mondal,
Mr. Subhrangsu Panda
...For the West Bengal College Service Commission
Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharya,
Ms. Sanjukta Samanta
...For the State
The College Service Commission, West Bengal,
published an advertisement inviting applications for the
posts of Assistant Professor. In the said advertisement the
date of commencement of online application was
mentioned as December 31, 2020, while the last date for
the submission of online application was fixed on February
15, 2021. It was, inter alia, mentioned in the said
advertisement that the cut-off date for all items of
qualification and experience, including publication, would
be February 15, 2021.
By a subsequent notification dated November 12,
2021, the last date for submission of online application
was extended upto November 22, 2021. Thereafter another
notification dated February 19, 2021, was published and
the last date of filing the application was further extended
2
till March 15, 2021.
The petitioners are aspirants for the said post of
Assistant Professor. Petitioner no. 1 obtained Ph.D degree
on March 10, 2021, while petitioner no. 2 got his Ph.D.
degree on March 8, 2021.
It has been submitted by the learned advocate
appearing for the petitioners that since the last date for
filing the application was extended till March 15, 2021,
and both the petitioners obtained their Ph.D degrees
within the date, the College Service Commission should
have considered the said qualification.
Mr. Mondal, learned advocate appearing for the
College Service Commission on the other hand submits
that in the advertisement, the cut-off date for qualification
was mentioned as February 15, 2021. The petitioners
having obtained their Ph.D qualification subsequent to the
cut-off date as mentioned in the advertisement, cannot ask
the College Service Commission to consider the said
qualification.
Mr. Mondal further submits that the College Service
Commission never extended the cut-off date, it always
remained as February 15, 2021, only the last date of
application was extended till March 15, 2021. Therefore,
Ph.D degree of the petitioners has not been considered by
the College Service Commission.
The issue involved in this writ petition is no more res
integra, in view of the judgment reported at (1997) 4 SCC
18 (Ashok Kumar Sharma - Vs. - Chander Shekhar).
The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted
3
below:
"6. ... The proposition that where
applications are called for prescribing a
particular date as the last date for filing the
applications, the eligibility of the
candidates shall have to be judged with
reference to that date and that date alone,
is a well-established one. A person who
acquires the prescribed qualification
subsequent to such prescribed date cannot
be considered at all. An advertisement or
notification issued/published calling for
applications constitutes a representation to
the public and the authority issuing it is
bound by such representation. It cannot
act contrary to it. One reason behind this
proposition is that if it were known that
persons who obtained the qualifications
after the prescribed date but before the
date of interview would be allowed to
appear for the interview, other similarly
placed persons could also have applied.
Just because some of the persons had
applied notwithstanding that they had not
acquired the prescribed qualifications by
the prescribed date, they could not have
been treated on a preferential basis. Their
applications ought to have been rejected at
the inception itself. This proposition is
indisputable and in fact was not doubted or
disputed in the majority judgment. This is
also the proposition affirmed in Rekha
Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan. The
reasoning in the majority opinion that by
allowing the 33 respondents to appear for
the interview, the recruiting authority was
able to get the best talent available and
that such course was in furtherance of
public interest is, with respect, an
impermissible justification. It is, in our
considered opinion, a clear error of law and
an error apparent on the face of the record.
In our opinion, R.M. Sahai, J. (and the
Division Bench of the High Court) was right
in holding that the 33 respondents could
not have been allowed to appear for the
interview."
The law is, therefore, very clear. If in the
advertisement, no cut-off date for qualification is
mentioned, the relevant date would be the last date of
filing the application but where the advertisement
mentions a cut-off date, a qualification obtained
subsequent thereto cannot be considered.
In this case, the cut-off date, as has been rightly
pointed out by Mr. Mondal, was never altered, it remained
the same as February 15, 2021.
For that reason, petitioners' Ph.D degrees could not
be considered on the basis of the extension of the last date
for filing the application.
In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this
writ petition.
Accordingly, WPA 8587 of 2022 is dismissed.
Let urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if
applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with
all necessary formalities.
(Kausik Chanda, J.)
