PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, WEST BENGAL Vs. PRITAM GHOSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Public Service Commission is aggrieved by an order dated December 14, 2020 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in OA no. 940 of 2019. By the impugned order, the learned tribunal, directed the Public Service Commission, West Bengal and its Secretary to recommend the name of the private respondent for the post of Krishi Prayukti Shayak to the Secretary Department of Agriculture, Government of West Bengal within eight weeks from the date of the presentation of the order. The State of West Bengal was directed to appoint the private respondent within eight weeks.

(2.) Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners submits that, the issue as to whether, rules of the game can be changed midstream is pending consideration of the Larger Bench. The Larger Bench is yet to pronounce on such issue finally. She submits that, such issue was referred to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2013) 4 SCC 540 [Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court and Ors.].

(3.) Relying on 1995 SCC(3) 486 [Madan Lal and Ors. Vs. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors.], (2018) 12 SCC 635 [Karnati Ravi vs. Commissioner, Survey Settlements and Land Records and Ors.] and (2020) 2 SCC 173 [Anupal Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department and Ors.], learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners submits that, a higher cut off marks can be prescribed through the selection process. She contends that, the private respondent participated in the selection process knowing fully well the parameter of the selection process. The private respondent participated in the interview without any objection. The cut off mark was prescribed for the purpose of interview. The fact that, the petitioners would be prescribing a cut off mark of the interview was notified to all the persons participating in the interview including the private respondent, prior to the private respondent participating in the interview. Information with regard thereto was published in the Website of the writ petitioners on April 9, 2018. Advertisement to such effect was published in the newspaper on April 12, 2018. The interview of the writ petitioners was held subsequently. Therefore, the private respondent was not prejudiced.