TRIDIP KUMAR DINGAL & ORS. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 194 · Decided: 04-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 194 
A 
TRIDIP KUMAR DINGAL & ORS. 
;..--4( 
\ 
II. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6444-6449 of 2008 etc) 
B 
NOVEMBER 4, 2008 
[C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
y 
SeNice Law.- Selection - Written test as well as inteNiew 
held - Selection made only on the basis of inteNiew -:- 40% 
c marks allocated to inteNiew - Unsuccessful candidates 
challenging selection on the ground that selection solely on 
.. 
the basis of inteNiew was illegal - Plea of State that marks in 
written test was not to be considered because it was in the 
nature of elimination test - Tribunal directed preparation of 
D fresh merit list on the basis of both the tests - The seNices 
·of candidates already selected and appointed were protected 
...... 
- The order of Tribunal not challenged by State - In the 
appeals by the unsuccessful candidates challenging· 
protection of selected candidates, High Court remitting the 
E matter to Tribunal - Tribunal held the selection process on 
the basis of oral test legal - In . appeal High Court directing 
preparation of merit list on the basis of both the tests - On 
appeal, held: Direction to prepare merit list on the basis of 
both the tests was correct - It is just and equitable to protect 
(-
F the seNices of the selected and appointed candidates - High 
).-A· 
Court rightly directed to consider the cases of the candidates, 
who obtained 40% marks in written test and oral test and who 
could be placed with or above the selected candidates -
However, such benefit is available only to the candidates who 
G approached the court at the first instance - The benefit denied 
to those who approached this court by way of impleadment, 
on the ground of delay and /aches - Constitution of India, 
>-.....,. 
1950 - Articles 32, 226, 227 and 136. 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 32, 226, 227 and 
.H 
194 
TRIDIP KUMAR DINGAL & ORS. v. STATE OF WEST 
195 
BENGAL & ORS. 
136 - Discretionary jurisdiction under - Held: The Court in 
A 
exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction can refuse relief on 
the ground of delay and /aches - Such refusal is applicable 
even in case of infringement of fundamental rights. 
Department of Health and Family Welfare of State 
8 
Government issued a Memo to the ·Director of 
Employment Exchange for sponsoring candidates for the 
post of Medical Technologist (Laboratory). Names were 
received from the Employment Exchange. A written 
examination was held. Thereafter oral interview was held 
for the candidates who cleared the written examination. 
C 
The empanelment was done on the basis of marks · 
1 
obtained in the interview. 
· 
The candidates who could not get entry in the select 
list, approached State Administrative Tribunal contending 
0 
that preparation of the panel solely on the basis of the 
1 
marks obtained in interview, without considering the 
marks in the written examination, was illegal and contrary 
to law. Tribunal directed preparation of fresh merit list on 
the basis of marks obtained in the interview as well as 
IE 
written examination. The services of the candidates who 
were already selected and appointed, were protected. 
Appellants filed writ petition, wherein High Court 
directed the Tribunal to consider the case of selected and 
appointed candidates as the Tribunal had not assigned 
F 
any reasons as to why they were protected and also to 
consider the question whether 40% marks could have 
1 
been allotted to the oral test. Tribunal held that as the 
written examination was in the nature of elimination test 
which was decided to be resorted to pursuant to G 
administrative decision in absence of Recruitment Rules, 
the same was legal and proper; and that since the entire 
selection process was found legal, there was no 
question of cancellation of appointment of the candidates 
who had already joined service. 
H 
196 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 
A 
The order was challenged by the appellants. High 
>"~~ 
Court held that the Tribunal committed an error of law in 
not directing the authorities to prepare merit list on the 
basis of marks obtained in the written test as well as 
interview and hence directed preparation of fresh panel 
B on the basis of both the tests. 
Appellants filed a contempt pe.tition .alleging non- . 
implementation of the direction. The High Court 
protected the service of the selected and appointed 
c candidates and directed the remaining vacancies to be 
filled from the fresh panel w

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.