Page 1 of 22

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present :-

The Hon’ble Justice PARTHA SARATHI SEN

WPA 9749 OF 2019

SAIKAT SARKAR

-Vs-

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

For the Petitioner: Mr. Debajyoti Deb, Adv.

Mr. Harshwardhan Kr. Jha, Adv.

For the W.B.M.S.C: Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya, Adv.

For the Respondent No.4:

For the Pvt. Respondent No.5:

Mr. Shouveek Ray, Adv.

Ms. Indrani Majumder, Adv.

Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Dhiman Kr. Sengupta, Adv.

Ms. Farhin Mustaque, Adv.

Hearing concluded on: 03.07.2026

Judgment on: 10.07.2026

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J. : –

1. The subject matter of the instant writ petition is the Notification No.

MSC/web/22/Direct-II dated 27.05.2019 issued on 30.05.2019, a copy of

which has been annexed at page No. 40 of the instant writ petition being

Annexure P-7. By the impugned notification, the respondent No. 3 authority,

being the Secretary, West Bengal Municipal Service Commission (the

Page 2 of 22

"Commission" for short), declared the private respondent No. 5 as a successful

candidate and thus recommended his name for appointment for the post of

Assistant Planner pursuant to Advertisement No. 20 of 2018, as published by

the Secretary of the Commission (a copy of the said advertisement dated

07.09.2018 is available at page Nos. 31–33 of the instant writ petition).

2. At the time of hearing, Mr. Deb, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of

the writ petitioner, at the very outset placed his reliance upon the said

advertisement dated 07.09.2018 as issued and published by the respondent

No. 3 authority. It is submitted by Mr. Deb that the writ petitioner, pursuant to

such advertisement, applied for the post of ‘Assistant Planner’. At this stage,

Mr. Deb also requested this Court to look into the minimum educational

qualification with experience as has been required for appointment to the post

of Assistant Planner. For better appreciation of the minimum educational

qualification with experience for the post of ‘Assistant Planner’, the relevant

portion of the said advertisement is reproduced hereinbelow verbatim:

2. Assistant

Planer

01 U.R. PB-4A

Rs. 15,600-42,000/-

Grade Pay – Rs.

5,400/-

18–40 yrs.

Minimum Educational Qualification with Experience

Essential: Bachelor Degree in Architecture / Civil Engineering with

Post Graduate Degree in Urban / Town / City / Regional Planning from

a recognized University or Institute approved by AICTE with a minimum

of 60% marks with a least 1 year experience (preparation of LUMR &

LUDCP / layouts and drafting design statements / Evaluation of the

different proposals concerning architectural or town planning fields /

attending to public appeals and public inquiries related to planning –

understanding general public opinions about planning issues and

proposals and visiting sites to assess the effects of proposals on people

Page 3 of 22

or the environment) in any Govt. Organization / PSU /Local Self Govt. /

Development Authority.

Desirable: Knowledge of Auto-Cad, 3-D Modeling Software, Arc-GIS,

Adobe Photoshop, SPSS or other statistical analysis software and

through knowledge of M.S. Office, Corporate membership of recognized

professional institutions (ITPI), knowledge of modern techniques of

comprehensive planning, published papers / articles in the relevant

fields with good report writing and presentation skills.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Deb that from paragraph 10 onwards of the instant

writ petition, the writ petitioner has specifically pleaded that the private

respondent, whose name had been recommended for the post of Assistant

Planner by the respondent No. 3 authority, did not possess the minimum

essential experience required for appointment to the post of Assistant Planner

and, despite the absence of such requisite experience, the private respondent

No. 5's name was recommended, thereby depriving the genuine candidature of

the writ petitioner.

4. In the course of his submission, Mr. Deb took me to the affidavit-in-

opposition filed by the private respondent No. 5. It is submitted that in

paragraph 4(c) of such affidavit-in-opposition, the private respondent No. 5

categorically stated that he completed the degree of Master of Urban and

Regional Planning on 23.12.2018 and, to substantiate the same, he annexed a

copy of the Master's Degree certificate at page No. 19 of his affidavit-in-

opposition. Drawing the further attention of this Court to paragraph 4(f) of the

affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent No. 5, it is argued by Mr. Deb that,

in the said paragraph, by way of a tabular format, the private respondent No. 5

Page 4 of 22

has disclosed his work experience in different organizations. It is further

submitted by Mr. Deb that from the said tabular chart it would reveal that the

alleged working experience of the private respondent No. 5 relates to a period

prior to his acquiring the Master's Degree. For better appreciation of such

pleading the relevant tabular format is quoted hereinbelow in verbatim:-

Name of

Organization

--Period-- No. of days

i) School of Ecology,

Infrastructure and

Human Settlement

Management,

Shibpur

19.05.2016 to

22.07.2016

64 days

ii) Tata Institute of

Social Science in

Mumbai

In May, 2017 for a

period of six

working weeks

44 days

iii) Gangasagar

Bakhkhali

Development

Authority

07.02.2018- 10.06.2019

28 days (i.e. till

the last date of

application)

Total no. days 394 days

5. Mr. Deb further submits that from page 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition as

filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 authorities it would reveal that the said

authorities considered the experience of the private respondent No. 5 as on the

date of the interview and not as on the date of publication of the advertisement,

i.e., 07.09.2018, or not even on the last date of submission of the application,

i.e., 02.11.2018. It is submitted by Mr. Deb that the said advertisement dated

07.09.2018 clearly indicates the requirement of a minimum of one year

experience in the relevant field, which should be after obtaining the Master's

Page 5 of 22

Degree on the relevant subject. It is further submitted by Mr. Deb that, by no

stretch of imagination, any working experience prior to obtaining the Master's

Degree can be held to be valid experience for applying to the post of Assistant

Planner. It is thus submitted by Mr. Deb that, on account of the illegal

recommendation of the name of the private respondent No. 5, by the

respondent No. 3 authority for the post of Assistant Planner, the writ

petitioner's rightful candidature was ignored, though the writ petitioner

possessed the requisite qualification and minimum working experience as per

the said advertisement dated 07.09.2018. Mr. Deb thus submits that this is a

fit case for cancellation of the impugned notification dated 30.05.2019 and,

consequently, the appointment of the private respondent No. 5 by respondent

No. 4 authority may be cancelled. It is further argued by Mr. Deb that this is a

fit case for issuance of an appropriate writ against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3

commanding them to recommend the name of the writ petitioner as a

successful candidate for the post of Assistant Planner and the respondent No.

4 authority may be directed to issue an appointment letter in favour of the writ

petitioner for the said post.

6. Per contra, Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate appearing on

behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, also placed her reliance upon the

advertisement dated 07.09.2018. It is submitted by Ms. Bhattacharyya that the

last date for making such application was extended from 02.11.2018 to

20.11.2018 and the same has been disclosed in the affidavit-in-opposition of

the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Drawing attention to the affidavit-in-opposition

Page 6 of 22

filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 authorities, it is submitted by Ms.

Bhattacharyya that it is the specific case of the respondent nos. 2 and 3

authorities that in connection with the said advertisement, applications were

accepted online and, therefore, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had no opportunity to

scrutinize the educational certificates and experience credentials prior to the

personality test. It is further argued by Ms. Bhattacharyya that, on the date of

the interview of private respondent No. 5, respondent No. 3 authority found

that the private respondent No. 5 possessed the minimum one year's work

experience as on the date of the interview and, therefore, recommended his

name for appointment to the post of Assistant Planner, since he had secured

the highest total marks in the written test and the interview. It is further

submitted by Ms. Bhattacharyya that nowhere in the advertisement dated

07.09.2018 it was indicated that the minimum one year's experience was

required to be acquired after completion of the Master Degree in the relevant

subject. It is thus submitted by Ms. Bhattacharyya that, since on the date of

the interview respondent No. 3 authority found that private respondent No. 5

possessed the minimum one year's work experience in the relevant field, the

respondent No. 3 authority found no reason to treat his candidature as invalid.

It is thus submitted by Ms. Bhattacharyya that the instant writ petition is

devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

7. In the course of his argument, Mr. Ray, learned Advocate appearing on

behalf of respondent No. 4 authority, placed reliance upon the following two

judgments:

Page 7 of 22

a) Subhash, S/o Shriram Dhonde vs. State of Maharashtra &

Anr. reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 332

and

b) Dr. Sharmad vs. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in 2025

SCC OnLine SC 71.

8. It is submitted by Mr. Ray that, in the case of Subhash (Supra), the

Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed no difference between acquisition of experience

prior to or after acquisition of the basic qualification.

9. Placing reliance upon the case of Dr. Sharmad (Supra), it is submitted by

Mr. Ray that, in a similar situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion

to consider an identical issue, wherein it was held that the exclusion of the

words "after acquiring postgraduate degree" is deliberate and conscious, since

the Government did not require such post-qualification experience for the posts

under consideration. It is thus submitted by Mr. Ray that, upon careful

scrutiny of the contents of the advertisement dated 07.09.2018, it would reveal

that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 deliberately excluded the words "after acquiring

Post Graduate Degree" after the words "one year's experience".

10. In course of his argument Mr. Ray placing his reliance upon the

judgment as passed in the case of A.K. Raghumani Singh & Ors. vs. Gopal

Chandra Nath & Ors. reported in (2000) 4 SCC 30 contended that the term

“with” as has been mentioned in between the words “minimum educational

qualification” and “experience” has been well explained by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court. It is submitted by Mr. Ray that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in an

Page 8 of 22

identical situation while dealing with the word “with” came to a finding that the

Court would not be justified in reading a qualification into the conjunctive word

and imply the word “subsequent” after the word “with”

11. Placing his reliance upon the judgment as passed in the case of Post

Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh vs.

Gurvinder Singh & Ors. in Civil Writ Petition No. 5202 of 2017 by the

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, it is argued by Mr. Ray that the said

Hon’ble High Court held that unless it is so expressly provided under the rules,

the experience gained before or after acquiring the academic qualification

would be a valid experience for the purpose of determining the eligibility. In his

next limb of submission Mr. Ray contended that in the unreported decision as

passed in WP(C) No. 2554 of 2026 (Union Public Service Commission vs.

Piyush Anand & Anr.) the High Court of Delhi also considered that the period

of internship in an organization where the incumbent discharged his duty

rigorously is to be considered as an experience in the relevant field.

12. Mr. Ray thus submits that, for the reasons stated hereinabove, it cannot

be said that the candidature of private respondent No. 5 was not valid for the

post of Assistant Planner. It is thus submitted by Mr. Ray that respondent No.

3 authority rightly recommended the name of the private respondent No. 5 for

the post of Assistant Planner and, therefore, the instant writ petition is liable to

be dismissed.

13. In course of his submission Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the private respondent no. 5 at the very outset draws

Page 9 of 22

attention of this Court to the prayers made in the instant writ petition. It is

submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya that in the instant writ petition the

appointment of the writ petitioner was never under challenge. At this stage

attention of this Court is drawn to page nos. 31 to 33 of the instant writ

petition being a copy of the advertisement as published by the respondent nos.

2 and 3 authorities. Drawing attention to the affidavit-in-reply as filed by the

respondent nos. 2 and 3 authorities, it is submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya that

from the various paragraphs of the said writ petition it would reveal that the

respondent nos. 2 and 3 authorities being an expert body considered private

respondent no. 5 as a suitable candidate for recommendation for the post of

“Assistant Planner” and in absence of any glaring perversity, such decision

ought not to have been interfered with in a judicial review.

14. In his next limb of submission Mr. Bhattacharya again draws attention of

this Court to the said advertisement. It is submitted that the said

advertisement clearly indicates that the aspirants applying for the post of

“Assistant Planner” must possess some essential academic qualification and

experience in the field as have been mentioned in the said advertisement in

detail. It is argued by Mr. Bhattacharya that as to whether the experience of an

aspirant touches the parameter as mentioned in the said advertisement has

been decided by a panel of experts, the correctness of which ought not to be

questioned by the Hon’ble High Court since the said body of experts is the best

authority to decide whether the experience of the aspirant will suit their

Page 10 of 22

purpose. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment as passed in the

case of G.N. Nayak vs. Goa University & Ors. reported in (2002) 2 SCC 712.

15. Mr. Bhattacharya also placed his reliance upon the judgment as passed

in the case of Madras Institute of Development Studies & Anr. vs. K.

Sivasubramaniyan & ors. reported in (2016) 1 SCC 454. It is submitted by

Mr. Bhattacharya that in the case of Madras Institute of Development

Studies (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressly held that the decision of

the academic authorities about the suitability of a candidate cannot normally

be examined by the High court under its writ jurisdiction. It is thus submitted

by Mr. Bhattacharya that it is a fit case for dismissal of the instant writ

petition.

16. In course of his reply Mr. Deb, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of

the writ petitioner in his usual fairness submits before this Court that he is not

urging the point that on the day of publication of the advertisement or on the

last day of submission of application as per the said advertisement the private

respondent no. 5 has not acquired his degree in Master’s in the relevant

subject since on the day of publication of the advertisement, the provisional

result of the 4

th

semester examination in such Master’s Degree course was

published and the private respondent no. 5 was found to be cleared the said

examination with first class. It is however submitted that from the affidavit-in-

opposition of the private respondent no. 5 it would reveal that the experience

as has been described by a tabular form and as has been quoted in the

foregoing part of this judgment is not in accordance with the requirement of the

Page 11 of 22

said advertisement. It is thus submitted by Mr. Deb that the private

respondent no. 5 had no requisite working experience as called for in the said

advertisement by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 authorities and even such

experience has not been acquired by the said private respondent no. 5 after

obtaining Master’s Degree and thus he ought not to be considered as a

qualified candidate for the post of “Assistant Planner” by the respondent nos. 2

and 3 authorities.

17. This Court has meticulously gone through the entire materials as placed

before this Court including the reported decisions as cited from the Bar. This

court has given its due consideration over the submissions of the learned

Advocates for the contending parties.

18. In order to arrive at a logical conclusion of the instant lis, this Court at

the very outset proposes to look to the law of land regarding experience as

required for being qualified as an eligible candidate for a particular post. In

other words, this Court shall make a venture to examine as to whether

acquisition of working experience prior to acquisition of the basic qualification

as has been indicated in an advertisement for appointment of a candidate for a

particular post can be held to be a valid experience in case of the public

employment.

19. In the reported decision of Subhash (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court

while dealing with a similar situation and /or a similar type of question held

thus:

“2. The Tribunal has dismissed the appellant's application

only on the ground that the appellant had acquired the

Page 12 of 22

working experience of one year prior to acquisition of the

basic qualifications which in this case is diploma in

Automobile Engineering. For this purpose, the Tribunal relied

upon the circular issued by the Government. The rules,

namely, the Motor Vehicles Department (Recruitment) Rules,

1991 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution show that

a mere possession of the working experience of at least one

year in a reputed Automobile Workshop as mentioned under

Rule 3(e) is enough. The rule does not make any difference

between acquisition of such experience prior to or after the

acquisition of the basic qualification. What is further, the

record shows that even after the acquisition of the basic

qualification as mentioned in Rule 3(c), the appellant has

acquired the additional experience of one year in a reputed

Automobile Workshop as required even by the said circular.

The Tribunal has committed an error in relying upon the

circular which cannot replace the rules framed under Article

309 of the Constitution. We are, therefore, of the view that

the Tribunal's decision is incorrect. Since the appellant

satisfies the qualifications required by the rules, the decision

of the Tribunal has to be set aside. ………………………..”

20. In the case of Dr. Sharmad (Supra) a similar question arose before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court as to whether a requisite numbers of years of physical

teaching experience after acquiring Post Graduate degree is/are required for

being qualified of the valid candidate. While dealing with such situation the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus:

“5. Insofar as Branch - I i.e. Administrative Cadre is

concerned, the same bore two posts i.e. Director of Medical

Education and Joint Director of Medical Education/Principals

of Medical Colleges. Under the column experience, we find the

requirement for appointment on the posts of Director of Medical

Education and Joint Director of Medical Education/Principals

to be common. The same reads as under:

“Minimum 10 years of Physical Teaching Experience in

Government Medical Colleges (under Medical Education

Department in Kerala) after acquiring postgraduate degree”.

(emphasis supplied)

Page 13 of 22

6. For recruitment and appointment on the posts of

Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor, the

educational qualifications appear to be the same. An aspirant

must have the degree of M. Ch in Neurosurgery or DNB

(Neurosurgery). The experience criteria required for the said

three posts, however, vary. The same are set out hereunder:

Professor Associate

Professor

Assistant

Professor

One year

Physical

Teaching

experience as

Associate

Professor.

Five years Physical

Teaching experience

as Assistant

Professor.

Three years

Physical Teaching

experience as

Senior

Lecturer/Lecturer.

7. If the experience criteria required for appointment on the

posts under Branch - I i.e. - Administrative Cadre are

juxtaposed with the experience criteria required for

appointment on the teaching posts of Professor/Associate

Professor/Assistant Professor, what stands out is that in case

of posts in the teaching cadre, the words “after acquiring

postgraduate degree” are conspicuous by its absence under

the column ‘experience’.”

********************************************************************

“22. ......... The submission on behalf of Dr. Jyotish that

posts borne in the Administrative Cadre have responsibilities

different from those borne in the Teaching Cadre, though

attractive at first blush, pales into insignificance primarily for

the reason that insistence of physical teaching experience of a

specified number of years with a particular postgraduate or

super speciality degree would seem to be more required and

demanding for appointment on posts in the Teaching Cadre

rather than those in the Administrative Cadre. We are, thus,

minded to hold that the exclusion of the words “after acquiring

postgraduate degree” is deliberate and conscious and the

contentions advanced by Mr. Chitambaresh, to the contrary,

do not commend acceptance.”

***************************************************************

“26. ……… Furthermore, an examination of the ratio of the

decision favours the case of Dr. Sharmad. Not only does the

Page 14 of 22

passage begin with ‘(N)ormally’ leaving room for cases which

are other than normal, this Court also qualified that experience

required should be deemed to be experience gained after

acquiring the minimum qualifications, unless the context

otherwise demands. This is crucial. Also, such a general

interpretation may not arise in case of promotional

appointments. G.O. dated 07

th

April, 2008, read as a whole,

evinces without any ambiguity the view of the Government

that where the experience had to be gained posterior to the

acquisition of qualification, it had directly stated so. Thus, in

the context of this case, absence of such a stipulation gives

rise to but one conclusion, that the Government did not

demand such post-qualification experience for the posts under

consideration here. Although, normally, experience gained

after acquiring a particular qualification could justifiably be

insisted upon by the employer, there could be exceptions and

the present case is one such exception. It is well settled that

the intention of the rule framer has to be assessed on both

parameters i.e. the words used and that of necessary

implication. The requisite of post-qualification experience being

present in Branch - I, and absent from Branch - II, necessarily

implies that it was not a requirement for appointments on

promotion to posts borne in Branch - II.”

21. In the case of A.K. Raghumani Singh (Supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court

while dealing with a similar question regarding eligibility criteria of 6 years

regular service after the educational qualification was obtained or prior to

obtaining such qualification in terms of the promotion notification expressed

the following view:

“2. The Rules regulating the recruitment to the posts of

Superintending Engineers of the State of Manipur were

notified on 18-10-1977. The Rules called “the Manipur

PWD/Irrigation and Flood Control/Public Health

Engineering [Superintending Engineer

(Civil)/Superintending Surveyor of Works] Recruitment

Rules, 1977” provide that the post of Superintending

Engineer shall be filled up by promotion from “Executive

Engineer (Civil)/(Mech.) and Surveyor of Works possessing

degree in Civil/Mechanical Engineering or its equivalent

Page 15 of 22

from a recognised institution with 6 years' regular service in

the grade”.

3. The vacancy in the post of Superintending Engineer

arose in 1991. In the same year Respondent 1 filed a writ

application seeking directions on the State Government to

consider his name for promotion to the post as he had put in

12 years' service in the grade and possessed the necessary

educational qualifications.

4. The writ application was opposed by the State

respondents. They contended that the eligibility criteria

required six years' regular service after the educational

qualification was obtained. In the writ petitioner's case, his

period of service after he obtained the AMIE Diploma was

far short of the requirement and as such, according to the

respondents, he could not be considered for promotion to the

post of Superintending Engineer. The writ application was

allowed by the learned Single Judge on 17-3-1993. It was

held that the requirement of six years' service was

independent of the requirement of educational qualifications

and the eligibility criteria was fulfilled even if the requisite

experience had been obtained before obtaining the

educational qualifications.”

****************************************************************

“7. The word “with” has been defined in the New Shorter

Oxford Dictionary (1993), diversely the meaning depending

on the context in which it is used. But when it is used to

connect two nouns it means: “Accompanied by; having as

an addition or accompaniment. Frequently used to connect

two nouns, in the sense ‘and’ — ‘as well’.”

8. Applying the definition to the eligibility criteria it is clear

that it requires the prescribed educational qualification and

6 years' experience as well. Given the plain meaning of the

phrase, the Court would not be justified in reading a

qualification into the conjunctive word and imply the word

“subsequent” after the word “with”.”

22. in the case of Gurvinder Singh (Supra) a Division Bench of the High

Court of Punjab and Haryana expressed the following view:

“Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and

Research, Chandigarh (for short, 'the PGIMER') assails the

order dated 09.12.2016 whereby the Central

Page 16 of 22

Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench has held the 1

respondent eligible for the post of Store Keeper.

[2] The issue which fell for consideration of the learned

Tribunal was whether three years' experience in handling

store preferably medical store in a

Government/public/private sector was required to be

gained after acquiring the essential qualification or such

an experience earned before acquiring the essential

qualification was also sufficient to become eligible for the

post of Store Keeper?

[3] The essential qualification prescribed for the post of

Store Keeper by the petitioner-Institute is as follows:-

"Essential:- (i) Bachelors degree in

Economic/Commerce/Statistics.

(ii) Postgraduate degree/diploma in Material

Management from a recognized University/Institute

or equivalent.

Desirable:- Experience in handling stores and

record keeping in a store preferably medical or

concern of a repute in public or private sector.

Or

(i) Degree of a recognized University or equivalent.

(ii) Post graduate degree/diploma in Material

Management of a recognized University/Institute.

(iii) Three years experience in handling stores

preferably medical stores in

Government/Public/Private Sector...."

[4] It may be seen that the Rule nowhere explicitly

provides that the three years' experience in handling store

preferably medical stores in Government/Public/Private

Sector must have been gained after the acquisition of

academic qualification of Post Graduate degree/diploma in

Material Management.

[5] The 1st respondent applied in response to the

advertisement issued by the petitioner-Institute. He

qualified the written test but at the time when candidates

were short-listed for viva-voce, the name of 1st respondent

was placed amongst non-eligible candidate with the

objection that his three years' experience was not post the

essential qualifications.”

23. On careful perusal of the propositions of law as decided in the

aforementioned reported decisions as quoted supra, it appears to this Court

Page 17 of 22

that it is the consistent view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that unless rule

and/or notification for advertisement does not make any difference between

acquisition of such experience ‘prior to’ or ‘after’ the acquisition of the basic

qualification, in that event the High Court in its judicial review must restrain

itself from adding a conjunctive word “subsequent” after the words “with” in

order to imply that such working experience would mean after acquisition of

basic qualification. It further appears to this Court that in the case of Dr.

Sharmad (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically observed that in a

like situation, absence of such a stipulation gives rise to but one conclusion

that the selecting authority did not demand such post qualification experience

for the post under consideration unless the same is conspicuous either in the

recruitment rule or in the advertisement seeking application for appointment.

24. At this juncture, if I once again look to the relevant advertisement which

is subject matter of the instant writ petition, it appears that the respondent

nos. 2 and 3 authorities have indicated in the said advertisement for the post

of “Assistant Planner” that the aspiring candidate must possess Bachelor

Degree in Architecture/Civil Engineering with Post Graduate Degree in urban/

town/ city/ regional planning from a recognized university or institute

governed by AICTE with a minimum of 60% marks, with a least 1 year

experience in preparation of LUMR and LUTCP/ lay outs and drafting business

statements/ evaluation of the different propositions concerning architectural or

town planning fields etc. It appears to this Court that it goes without saying

Page 18 of 22

that the private respondent no. 5 possessed essential educational qualification

for being appointed for the post of “Assistant Planner”.

25. At this stage if I look to the part of experience as called for in the said

advertisement, it reveals that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 authorities being

selection authorities called for at least 1 year experience in the relevant

subjects. If the said advertisement is looked into keeping in mind the

proposition of law as decided in the case of Subhash (Supra), Dr. Sharmad

(Supra) and A.K. Raghumani Singh (Supra) , it appears to this Court that

after the words “with at least 1 year experience” the words “after acquiring Post

Graduate Degree” are/were consciously not included by the respondent nos. 2

and 3 authorities. In considered view of this Court in the event the respondent

nos. 2 and 3 authorities being an expert body considers that for the post in

question 1 year experience in the relevant subjects is sufficient, this Court

while sitting in a judicial review cannot add the word “subsequent” and/or

“after acquiring Post Graduate Degree’ in absence of any contrary material. In

course of his argument Mr. Deb would not show any rule and/or any clause in

the said advertisement that the experience gained only after acquiring the

requisite academic qualification could be valid for the purpose of determining

the eligibility criteria.

26. As discussed (Supra) Mr. Deb in course of his argument was also very

vocal with regard to inadequacy of experience of the private respondent no. 5

inasmuch as according to Mr. Deb the alleged experience of the private

respondent no. 5 as has been indicated in page no. 6 of the affidavit-in-

Page 19 of 22

opposition of the respondent no. 5 and as has been quoted in the foregoing

paragraph in a tabular form is/are absolutely inadequate in terms of the

advertisement in question. In considered view of this Court, this Court finds no

much force in the argument of Mr. Deb since in absence of any patent illegality

and/or irregularity in the decision making process while selecting the private

respondent no. 5 as a suitable candidate for the post of “Assistant Planner” this

Court sitting in writ jurisdiction cannot substitute its own view simply because

another view is possible. In this regard, recourse may be taken to the reported

decision of Madras Institute of Development Studies (Supra) as referred to

on behalf of the private respondent no. 5 wherein the Hon’ble supreme Court

expressed thus:

“12. ………. It is well settled that the decision of the

academic authorities about the suitability of a candidate to

be appointed as Associate Professor in a research institute

cannot normally be examined by the High Court under its

writ jurisdiction. Having regard to the fact that the

candidates so selected possessed all requisite

qualifications and experience and, therefore, their

appointment cannot be questioned on the ground of lack of

qualification and experience. The High Court ought not to

have interfered with the decision of the Institute in

appointing Respondents 2 to 4 on the post of Associate

Professor.”

27. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.N.

Nayak (Supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the

scope of judicial review in respect of required experience as called for by the

University expressed the following:

Page 20 of 22

“24. If we analyse the 1995 advertisement and

handout it will be seen that the minimum qualifications

prescribed for a candidate were that he/she had to be:

(a) an eminent scholar;

(b) with work of high quality;

(c) actively engaged in research;

(d) with 10 years' experience in postgraduate teaching

and/or research at the university/national-level institution

including experience of guiding research at doctoral level;

……”

*******************************************************

“26. ……… The advertisement was issued in October

1995 and the Selection Committee met on 20-5-1996. The

appellant claims that if the research which was conducted

by him for three years in connection with obtaining his

Doctoral degree is counted in addition to his teaching

experience, he is qualified.

27. That a candidate can club together his

qualifications of teaching and research to cover the 10

years' period has been held in Kumar Bar Das

(Dr) v. Utkal University [(1999) 1 SCC 453 : 1999 SCC

(L&S) 236] . The question still remains, would any kind of

research at a university do? Strictly speaking and as a

matter of legal interpretation, the phrase “research at the

university/national-level institution” should be

read ejusdem generis and in the context of the alternate

qualifications specified viz. “teaching experience” and the

last phrase “including experience of guiding research at

doctoral level”. In other words, the research must be

independent such that the researcher could guide others

aspiring for Doctorate degrees and not the research where

the researcher is striving for a Doctorate degree himself.

The appellant's research prior to 17-9-1986 was pre-

doctoral. Consequently and according to the letter of the

law, perhaps the appellant was not qualified to be

considered as a candidate for a Professorship in 1996

since he had failed to meet the criteria by about four

months.

28. However, the Court would not be justified in

adopting a legalistic approach and proceed on a technical

view of the matter without considering the intention of the

Page 21 of 22

University in laying down the condition of eligibility [Uma

Shankar Sharma v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 202 :

1980 SCC (L&S) 348 : AIR 1980 SC 1457] , since it is for

the University to decide what kind of research would be

adequate to qualify for professorship. The University had

intended, understood and consistently proceeded on the

basis that the pre-doctoral research could be counted

towards the 10 years' experience clause. So did

Respondent 5. ………….”

28. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances as involved in

the instant writ petition and after giving due adherence to the propositions of

law decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again, it appears to this

Court that in the relevant advertisement dated 07.09.2018 for the post of

“Assistant Planner” it was never the intention of the respondent nos. 2 and 3

authorities that the aspiring candidate must have 1 year experience in the

relevant field after acquisition of the Post Graduate Degree. It thus appears to

this Court that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 authorities being a specialized

body for taking recruitment examination and selection of the candidate for the

relevant post is the best authority to decide the requirement of academic

qualification vis-à-vis the experience and in doing so they have published the

said advertisement dated 07.09.2018 for the post of “Assistant Planner”

indicating the essential education qualification with at least 1 year experience

in the relevant field consciously omitting the words “after acquisition of Post

Graduate Degree”. As has been held time and again by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court that this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction in judicial review cannot

substitute itself as a specialized body and thus cannot import the words

Page 22 of 22

“subsequent to obtaining Post Graduate Degree” after the words “with at least 1

year experience”.

29. In view of the discussion made hereinabove this Court thus finds no

merit in the instant writ petition.

30. Accordingly, WPA 9749 of 2019 stands hereby dismissed.

31. There shall be, however, no order as to cost.

32. Interim order if there be any stands hereby vacated.

33. With the dismissal of the instant writ petition all pending interlocutory

applications, if there be any, stand hereby dismissed.

34. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgement, if applied for, be given

to the parties on completion of usual formalities.

(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)

(P.A.- PRAMITA)