AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
On 6th June, 2018 submissions made on behalf of petitioner and, inter alia, on behalf of the Commission were recorded as reproduced below : -
“By advertisement dated 30th June, 2015 West Bengal College Service Commission invited, inter alia, applications for the posts of Assistant
Professor from candidates who met the eligibility criteria prescribed. Relaxation of 5%, from 55% to 50% marks at Masters Degree level was made
admissible for SC/ST/differently abled (physically and visually) categories for the purpose of eligibility. Petitioner is an Other Backward Classes
(OBC) category candidate.
Mr. Dhar, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client had approached and obtained interim order dated 30th July,
2015 pursuant to which he successfully participated in the selection process. That order has become final. He submits, University Grants Commission
(UGC) in its 498th meeting held on 27th February, 2014 had approved said relaxation of 5% in qualifying marks to OBC candidates for direct
recruitment as teacher as also for them to take NET Examinations held by UGC. The said minutes were again approved in the 500th meeting of UGC
held on 25/27th March 2014. This was before issuance of the advertisement on 30th June, 2015. If the commission does not adhere to policy taken by
UGC then they would be guilty in discriminating between the reserved categories.
Mr. Mondal, learned advocate appears on behalf of College Service Commission hands up Government Order (GO) dated 18th January, 2017 on the
subject of relaxation of 5% marks , inter alia, for OBC category. He points out from the order that it was issued pursuant to notification dated 11th
July 2016 of UGC. Hence, there was no question of discrimination by the Commission in issuing the advertisement on 30th June, 2015. He seeks
adjournment to rely on authorities to show that in such fact situation there should be no interference.â€
Mr. Gupta, learned advocate appears on behalf of UGC and submits, notifications made by his client operate prospectively. Mr. Chattopadhyay,
learned advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, pursuant to interim order petitioner has participated in the selection process and has been
found eligible. The technicality arising by decision taken in February, 2014 by UGC notified later should not stand in the way of petitioner being
appointed. This court in exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should intervene.
Mr. Dhar draws attention to advertisement no. 18/SET/14 issued by the Commission regarding State Eligibility Test (SET). He demonstrates that the
advertisement notifies date of examination as on 14th December, 2014. It would appear from said advertisement that said relaxation was not given to
OBC category. He then refers to corrigendum to the said advertisement, issued on 25th September, 2014, to show that thereby OBC category
candidates were given the relaxation. This was done, according to him, pursuant to decision taken by UGC but not then notified.
On considering submissions made on behalf of parties this court is inclined to direct the relaxation to include OBC category. The doctrine of
contemporanea expositio applies. The Commission, at the material time, interpreted its position to adopt decision taken by UGC though not notified.
Writ Petition succeeds. If found successful, petitioner is to be recommended and given appointment to the post in accordance with law within a period
of six weeks. The writ petition is disposed of.