A press numberice dated 27.1.2009 was issued calling the successful candidates for interview, though such interview was number part of the recruitment process.
The written examination was held on 25.1.2009 which was given by 870 candidates out of which 573 candidates obtained 20 and above marks.
Shri Mahabir Singh, learned senior companynsel duly assisted by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned companynsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the employer has a right to prescribe for a higher qualification or a stringent test than prescribed under the statutory rules in order to select the best candidates and once the selection is over and the candidates appeared without any protest, they cannot be permitted to make a summer salt and challenge the selection as a whole.
The appointees appellants challenged the said order before the High Court.
Hence, these appeals.
In pursuance thereto, appointment letters were issued to the appellants herein.
The High Court upheld the reasoning of the Tribunal but modified the order to the extent of companytinuing the recruitment process from the point it stood vitiated.
In pursuance of the judgment and order of the High Court, termination letters were issued to the appellants.
Challenging the said appointments, the unsuccessful candidates filed Original Application before the Tribunal which was allowed, quashing such appointments as equal marks were earmarked for both the written examination and interview which is impermissible in law and that the interview was never part of the recruitment process and thereby ordering initiation of fresh recruitment process.
The interviews were companyducted and a final result sheet was published.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. These appeals arise out of the companymon judgment and order dated 5.4.2013, passed by the High Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair in W.P.C.T. Nos.607 610 of 2012 partly allowing the appeals against the judgment and order dated 24.8.2012, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Circuit Bench, Port Blair hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal allowing the O.A. No.124/AN/2010 and quashing the appointment orders dated 5.2.2009 and 4.6.2009.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are That an advertisement dated 4.2.2008 was published by the respondent authorities calling for applications from eligible candidates as well as from those who were registered with the Employment Exchange for appointment to the 8 posts of Group D staff.
The recruitment rules only provided for a written examination having 50 maximum marks.
