West Bengal College Service ... vs Amal Kanta Giri And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 2812 Cal

                                      1


                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

                      (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

                              APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Subrata Talukdar

And

The Hon'ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya



                         MAT 1129 of 2021
                                   with
                        IA No. CAN 1 of 2021


    West Bengal College Service Commission and Ors.
                                    Vs.
                      Amal Kanta Giri and Ors.


For the Appellant         :     Mr. Kishore Datta

                                Mr. Subhrangsu Panda

Ms. MithuSinghaMahapatra

For the Respondent No.1/ :       Mr. BiswarupBiswas

The Writ Petitioner              Mr. GorachandSamanta

Mr. SayantanHazra

For the State             :      Mr. Swapan Kumar Datta



Mr. Tapas Kumar Dey




Heard On                  : 17.01.2023

Judgement Delivered On    : 21.04.2023

THE COURT :- In this instant appeal the Judgement of the Hon'ble Single

Bench dated the 9thday of September, 2021 passed in the writ petition being

WPA 4138 of 2021 is under challenge. The challenge in the writ petition has

been thrown by the present respondent/writ petitioner to the decision of not

awarding two marks for post doctoral experience to him while assessing his

marks for preparation of the provisional merit list published by the West

Bengal College Service Commission for the post of Assistant Professor in

Physics under the unreserved category.

The facts of the case are that The West Bengal College Service

Commission (for short the Commission) published an advertisement being 1 of

2018 inviting applications for recruitment for the posts of 46 Assistant

Professors in the unreserved category in different Government aided colleges.

The respondent/writ petitioner applied for being recruited as an Assistant

Professor in Physics. The respondent/petitioner is a post graduate and has

qualified the NET examination. The respondent has a post doctoral degree from

the University of Duisberg-Essen, Germany and also has post doctoral research

experience of two years from the University of Porto (Portugal) for the period

extending from 1.9.2016 to 31.12.2018.

After the publication of the merit list by the Commission on the 2nd day

of November 2019 the respondent writ petitioner found himself to be placed at

serial No. 70. Thereafter the petitioner applied for his score sheet to know the

score pattern under the Right to Information Act. The petitioner after obtaining

the reply came to know that 20 marks has been allotted for performance in

interview and the petitioner from his score sheet came to learn that he has not

been awarded any mark on account of experience. As such the respondent/

writ petitioner has preferred the writ petition.

A report dated 10.08.2021 has been filed on behalf of the Chairperson of

the Commission mentioning that the respondent writ petitioner has not

submitted his post doctoral research experience certificate on the date of

interview, that is on 02.04.2019.On the contrary, hehas furnished the said

certificate by post on 02.02.2021, which has been received by the office of the

Commission on 04.02.2021.

It is the contention of the Commission that as the provisional merit panel

was published on 01.11.2019 and the post doctoral research experience

certificate been submitted on 04.02.2021 so the claim of the respondent/ writ

petitioner for two marks for his experience under the post doctoral category

cannot be allotted to him.

The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the West Bengal College

Service Commission during his elaborate submission has stated that as the

post-doctoral research experience certificate of the respondent/ writ petitioner

was not produced before the West Bengal College Service Commission on the

date of interview, that is on the 2nd day of April 2019 or before the publication

of the merit list published on the 2nd day of November 2019 so, the

respondent/writ petitioner was not awarded one extra mark each for every year

for the two years claimed of his post-doctoral research experience.

The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/writ

petitioner has submitted that the instant appeal has been preferred by the

West Bengal College Service Commission being aggrieved by the Judgement

and order passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench directing the said Commission to

verify the certificate produced by the writ petitioner in support of his post

doctoral research experience and if the said certificate is found to be genuine

then the Commission shall award necessary marks to the writ petitioner and

thereafter add the additional marks to the marks already awarded in his

favour and if after addition of the extra marks the position of the petitioner in

the merit panel changes then the petitioner shall be appropriately placed in the

provisional merit panel and if thereafter the respondent comes within the zone

of consideration then the recommendation letter is to be issued in his favour.

The Learned Counsel has further submitted that the said Commission

had not accepted any papers/ documents regarding educational qualification,

experience certificate, publication of articles, with the application form as the

advertisement had provided that the candidates must show the certificates in

original during the interview. He has further submitted that the

respondent/writ petitioner got the post doctoral experience certificate from his

Supervisor/ Associate Professor on 08.03.2019, that is prior to the date of

interview which was held on 02.04.2019. He has also submitted that the said

Commission being satisfied with the eligibility criteria furnished by the

respondent No.1/writ petitioner had called him for interview and the

respondent had appeared in the said interview and had produced all the

original certificates including the post doctoral experience certificate at the time

of interview.

The Learned Counsel has submitted that in the advertisement it was

specifically mentioned that the certificates/ documents will be verified during

interview. Learned Counsel has submitted that it is apparent that the

candidates must produce all the original documents as well as the photo copies

of the same otherwise his candidature would have been rejected and as the

respondent/writ petitioner ranked 70th in the panel for unreserved category so,

it is obvious that at the time of interview the respondent writ petitioner had

produced all the relevant documents including the post doctoral experience

certificate. Relying on the said facts and circumstances the Learned Counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1/ writ petitioner prayed for

dismissal of the instant appeal.

This Court agrees with the finding of the Hon'ble Single Bench that the

application filed online by the petitioner clearly mentioned that the applicant

possessed post-doctoral research experience for the period from the 1st day of

September 2016 to the 31stday of December 2018 and the certificate was

issued in favour of the applicant by the University of Porto on the 8th day of

March 2019. The said certificate was issued by the Associate Professor of the

University of Porto (Portugal) wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner

had worked since September 2016 and his research work has been published

in several international journals.

This Court is at one with the opinion of the Hon'ble Single Bench which

has opined that it is not understandable as to why a candidate who has the

requisite qualification and the necessary documents in support of the same will

withhold the documents and will not produce the same at the time of interview

even after knowing the fact that the said document was of extreme importance

for the purpose of awarding marks. This Court is also of the similar view as

that of the Hon'ble Single Bench that any prudent person looking for a job will

certainly produce all his certificates and documents before the selection body

without concealing the same to be produced later on being fully aware of the

fact that he may lose his chance to be selected if the document is not placed on

record.

This Court is of the same view as that of the Hon'ble Single Bench

wherein the Hon'ble Single Bench has come to the conclusion that the

certificate reflecting the post-doctoral research experience from the University

of Porto for the period between the 1st day of September 2016 to the 31st day of

December 2018 was duly produced by the petitioner at the time of interview

but possibly due to inadvertence the Commission overlooked the same and

accordingly the marks on account of post-doctoral research experience could

not be awarded to him. While dealing with the said fact, the Hon'ble Single

Bench has also mentioned that in this case the writ petitioner has approached

the Court during the validity of the said panel and as such the Hon'ble Single

Bench has been pleased to direct the Commission to verify the certificate

produced by the petitioner in support of his post-doctoral research experience

and in the event the certificate was genuine, then the Commission shall award

necessary marks to the petitioner and thereafter add the additional marks to

the marks already awarded in his favour and, if after addition of the extra

marks the position of the petitioner in the provisional merit panel changes,

then the petitioner shall be appropriately placed in the provisional merit panel

and if thereafter the petitioner falls within the zone of consideration then the

recommendation letter is to be issued in his favour, notwithstanding the fact

that the panel in question had expired in the meantime.

This Court accepts the elaborate discussion made by the Hon'ble Single

Bench that the respondent/writ petitioner through his Exception filed against

the Report filed by the Commission has submitted that the writ petitioner has

submitted all the documents along with post-doctoral research experience

certificate on the date of interview. It has also been mentioned that the officials

of the said Commission had checked and verified all the documents in support

of his qualifications and degree disclosed in the application form and after

being satisfied with his candidature had accepted the application of the

respondent.

The Hon'ble Single Bench has also discussed the fact that the application

filed online by the respondent/writ petitioner clearly mentions that the

respondent possessed the post-doctoral research experience certificate for the

period between 01.09.2016 and 31.12.2018 and the said certificate was issued

on 08.03.2019 by the Associate Professor of the University of Porto (Portugal).

In the said certificate it has been mentioned that the petitioner worked since

September 2016 and his research work has been published in several

international journals.

The crux of the instant lis is as to whether the post doctoral research

experience certificate was produced by the respondent / writ petitioner on the

date of interview or not. This Court accepts the discussion of the Hon'ble Single

Bench that the respondent/writ petitioner at the time of filing the application

had mentioned that he has experience of post doctoral research for the period

of two years and the relevant certificate has been issued by the University of

Porto prior to the date of interview.

The Commission has not alleged that the said certificate is an antedated

one and has also not alleged that the said certificate has been procured later

on and is not a genuine one and is being used for the purpose of

appointment.The Commission has only raised the issue that the certificate was

not produced on the date of interview and as such the marks meant to be

allotted on account of post-doctoral research experience has not been awarded

to the writ petitioner.

This Court accepts the view of the Hon'ble Single Bench that a person

having a qualification and the document issued in respect of the said

qualification will not withhold the said document. The Hon'ble Single Bench

has also taken note of the fact that it was instructed to the candidates by the

Commission that candidates were to submit the print out of the application

form submitted online along with self attested photo copies of all the relevant

documents which are required to be verified during the interview. The

Commission had also notified that the original certificates were required to be

produced during the interview failing which the candidature was to be rejected.

The Hon'ble Single Bench has taken into consideration that as the

respondent/writ petitioner had disclosed his educational qualification

including his post doctoral research experience and he possessed the certificate

in support of the same, it is to be taken into consideration that the petitioner

must have produced all his documents in support of his contention at the time

of his interview. It has also been taken into consideration that the candidature

of the writ petitioner had not been rejected because of non furnishing of the

certificate.

The Hon'ble Single Bench has also taken into consideration that the writ

petitioner had approached the Court during the validity period of the panel,

which has also been considered by this Court.

The moot point of the instant appeal is as to whether the respondent had

complied with the provisions as laid down in the publication of the

advertisement for the said recruitment.

From the facts and the circumstances it reveals that the respondent had

possessed the post-doctoral research experience from the 1st day of September

2016 to the 31st day of December 2018 and as such the respondent had the

experience of two years of post doctoral research both prior to the date of

interview, that is the 2nd day of April 2019 and also in terms of the outer date

for possessing such experience as stated in the advertisement to be 31st

August, 2018 having regard to the fact that the respondent/writ petitioner had

joined as post doctoral research fellow in September 2016 and by 31st August,

2018 already possessed two years experience.

In the light of the above discussion, the Order impugned of the Hon'ble

Single Bench stands affirmed.

MAT 1129 of 2021 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2021 stand accordingly

dismissed.

Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of the server copy of the

judgment and order placed on the official website of the Court.

Urgent Xerox certified photo copies of this judgment, if applied for, be

given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.

 (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)                         (Subrata Talukdar, J.)