A.K. Banerjee, J. - (1.) The Steel Authority of India limited wanted to fill up the post of Junior Technician -cum -Operating Trainee in Durgapur Steel Plant. The respondent authority framed the selection procedure as would appear from paragraph 5(g) of the Affidavit -in -Opposition filed by the respondent authority. The said procedure is set out herein below: The selection procedure for appointment of Jr. TOT in Durgapur Steel Plant (hereinafter refer to as DSP) is as follows : i) Minimum qualification for induction of Jr. TOT in DSP is Higher Secondary pass. ii) All sponsored candidates are required to appear in a written examination of 200 marks. The qualifying marks in the said examination for General Caste and Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe candidates are 50% and 40% respectively. General Caste candidates and Schedule Caste/Tribe candidates who obtain 50% and 40% respectively or more in the written test are called for interview. iii) Maximum marks in the interview is 75. Qualifying marks for General Caste and Schedule Caste/Tribe candidates are (50)% and 40% respectively. iv) Marks obtained in the written test as in the interview are added to find out the total marks. v) Based on the total marks obtained by the candidates a merit list of eligible candidates for different category is prepared separately. vi) Eligible candidates from the list is then sent for medical examination strictly on merit position. vii) Candidates who will be found medically fit from the said list are offered appointment as per number of vacancy in seriatim. viii) No panel is drawn in that regard. Applications were invited. The writ petitioner applied for the said post. He was asked to sit for written examination along with other candidates. According to the writ petitioner he got 100 marks in written test being 50% of the total mark and as such he became eligible in general category to participate in the viva voce test. In the viva voce test writ petitioner could obtain 36 mark out 75. As the bench mark was fixed at 37.5 he became unsuccessful and as such he could not be considered for appointment. The selection process had been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the qualifying marks fixed for the written examination was 100. However, it transpired that persons who got lesser marks than 100 in the written examination were also called for viva voce in violation of the recruitment rules. The respondent authority while admitting such fact in their Affidavit -in -Opposition stated that "due to bad result" the qualifying marks for the written test was reduced to 75 for the general candidates to bring good number of candidates within the zone of consideration. According to the respondent only 109 general category candidates could cross the bench mark fixed for the written examination. Mr. Bratindra Narayan Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention had relied upon the following decisions : i) : AIR 1988, SC 162 (State of U.P. vs. Sushil Kumar Srivastav); ii) : AIR 1992, SC 80 (Ashok vs. State of Karnataka); iii), 1991, Vol. I, SCC 662 (Mahinder Saigol vs. State of Punjab & Ors.) iv), 1985 Vol. IV, SCC 417 (Ashok Kr. Yadav vs. State of Haryana). v), 2000 Vol. II, Calcutta High Court Notes, page 419 (Dr. Md. Ketab Ali vs. State of West Bengal).
(2.) Relying on the aforesaid decisions Mr. Roy submitted that reduction of the bench mark when the selection was on and after the holding of the written examination was contrary to the recruitment rules and as such the entire selection process was bad and illegal and was liable to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) Mr. N.C. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent, tried to justify the action of the respondent authority by submitting that the writ petitioner was not prejudiced as he was called for the interview being a successful candidate in the written examination. Mr. Bhattacharjee further submitted that this was an administrative action and since there was no malafide or bias alleged in the writ petition this court was not competent to interfere with the selection process. Mr. Bhattacharjee further submitted that there had been a delay for about 2 years on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Hon'ble Court.;