Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) The petitioner is the second emparelled candidate in a selection process held by the appropriate authority for the purpose of filling up the post of Sahayak etc. for the respective Gram Panchayat. The first empanelled candidate got 44% marks in the written test and 13.5% marks in oral test in total 57.5%. The petitioner/second empanelled candidate got 50% marks in written test and 3.83% marks in the oral test altogether 53.83% marks. The eligibility criteria as regards qualification of the candidates is as follows: "Minimum educational qualification is passed Madhyamik or equivalent examination, having secured at least fifty percent marks in aggregate, of any recognised University/Board/Council. The requirement of securing at least fifty percent marks in Madhyamik or equivalent examination is relaxable when a candidate having passed Madhyamik or equivalent examination, has in addition at least three continuous years working experience in the nature of Clerk or Clerk-cum-Typist in a Panchayat of any tier. Knowledge of Type Written shall be a desirable qualification". From the qualification it is crystal clear that 50% marks in aggregate is the minimum requirement for the purpose of becoming eligible. Such level of marks is relaxable where a candidate has three years continuous working experience. The names were forwarded by the candidate who secured 50% marks. Accordingly, the Block Level Selection Committee allowed the candidates to participate in the written test. Before the viva-voce or oral test, the petitioner put an objection about minimum qualifying marks of respondent no.9. He said that the respondent rto. 9 did not get 50% marks being the minimum aggregate to qualify the eligibility test. The matter was placed before the Chairman of the Block Level Selection Committee, who, in turn, taken a decision that since the matter has been considered and forwarded by the Employment Officer, there cannot be any objection on that score. The Committee members accepted the view.
(2.) According to me, the balance of convenience is playing a very crucial role in this regard. Under normal circumstances, either in the school or in the college or in the University, fractional marks which are more than 50% marks of such fraction added with the higher side of marks when less than the 50% marks of such fraction added to the lower side of marks. But such process can be done only by the institutions that are allocating the marks. It cannot be suo motu construed either by the Employment Exchange or by the Selection Committee because they are not the allocaters of the marks. Such authorities will be governed by their own rules. Whenever the authority is prescribing a rule for the purpose of recruitment it has to be strictly followed.
(3.) The recruitment rule says that a qualification at least 50% marks in aggregate will be the minimum level. The word "at least" cannot be less than at least whatever fractional marks available for the purpose. On the other hand, the Employment Exchange has no business to construe such marks of 49.78% as 50% to include the candidate in the zone of consideration by the recruiting authority. Both the authorities have proceeded reluctantly in the case of considering the matter which favoured the respondent No.6. From the list of five empanelled candidates I find the position of the so-called first empanelled candidate i.e. respondent No.6 herein is fourth in rank. On the other hand, when all other four candidates obtained 3% to 5% marks in the oral test the so-called first empanelled candidate obtained 13.5% marks. Normally, Court does not interfere with the selection process but if obtaining of oral marks of 13.5% is added with the reluctant attitude of the Block Level Selection Committee and the employment Exchange construe 49.78% marks of such empanelled candidate as 50% it gives an impression of favouritism before the Court.;