IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WP.CT/32/2026 The Union of India and others Vs Shri. M.Shiva Prasad Mr. Rakesh Kumar … for the petitioners Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar … for the respondent July 27, 2026 [AKB] Item No.2 1. The subject writ petition is directed against the judgement and order dated 02nd April, 2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench in O.A. No. 351/168/2024. The private respondent/applicant approached the Tribunal challenging his rejection in a recruitment process. 2. The recruitment process published by Notice dated 28th April, 2023 was conducted by the Electricity Department of the Administration acting as Nodal Agency to recruit 2 posts of Junior Engineer (JE) at the Port Blair Municipal Council (PBMC), 47 posts of JE in the Electricity Department, 1 post of JE in the Labour Department and 1 post of JE in the Port Management Board. 3. Curiously the qualifications for the PBMC & Electricity Department, prescribed were similar. 7. Educational and other Qualifications required for direct recruits Essential: 1. Degree in Electrical/Mechanical/Electrical & Electronics Engineering from a recognized University. Or Diploma in Electrical/Mechanical/Electrical & Electronics Engineering from a recognized Institution with 02 years experience in Govt. Department/ Registered Private 2 Establishment/ Organization in the field related to Power Utility Services/DG sets/maintenance of Distribution Transformers/ Transmission & Distribution system. 2. Should qualify the written examination. 4. From a plain reading of the aforesaid qualifications for the said post in the two departments it would transpire that for each department there were certain specialized requirements. 5. Be that as it may in response to the aforesaid recruitment notice the petitioner applied to the post of Junior Engineer in the “Electricity Department”, which had the maximum posts advertised. A second choice was given for the PBMC for the post of Junior Engineer (E&M). 6. The petitioner admittedly possessed a degree from a recognized Engineering College as Engineer in Mechanical and Production Engineering. 7. Against his application the petitioner was issued an Admit Card wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner’s first choice was to the Junior Engineer (E&M) in the PBMC. The petitioner did not raise any protest or objection thereto. In the Admit Card it was however specifically mentioned that scrutiny of all documents would be held after the examination process was over. It was further specified that any discrepancy found in the information given in the online application would disqualify the candidate. 8. The petitioner sat for the written examination and obtained a rank that disqualified him from the principal post 3 chosen and mentioned in the Admit Card i.e. Junior Engineer (E&M), PMBC. Upon scrutiny of his qualifications the Electricity Department (the next choice) found that a degree in Mechanical and Production Engineering would not meet their requirements even if the qualifications of the petitioner were treated as Mechanical Engineer. 9. At this juncture it would be appropriate to mention that the private respondent participated in a recruitment process in 2019 inter alia in the Electricity Department for the post of JE identical to the subject recruitment process. Upon his application being rejected at the initial stage before the examination and upon the petitioner making a representation in this regard and after scrutiny of the subjects in his Engineering course the respondents permitted him to participate in the recruitment process as a Mechanical Engineer. The petitioner did not however qualify in such process. 10. When the Electricity Department scrutinized the rank as well as qualifications of the private respondent in the subject requirement process of 2023 they found that the degree in Mechanical and Production Engineering could not be equated with that of a pure Mechanical Engineer and his application was rejected despite the petitioner coming in the zone of consideration for the post of Junior Engineer. 11. Being aggrieved by dissatisfied with the said rejection and the refusal on the part of the Electricity Department to recruit 4 the private respondent he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal at Kolkata in 351/168/2024. The writ petitioner contended as follows before the Tribunal: a. In an earlier recruitment process held in the year 2019 when the Electricity Department found that the degree in Mechanical and Production Engineering was equivalent to a degree in Mechanical Engineer, they cannot take a contrary stand in the present recruitment process. b. The issuance of Admit Card indicating the first choice of the petitioner as Junior Engineer in the PBMC is at best a clerical error of the respondents. He cannot be penalised for the same when his application specified that his first choice was the Electricity Department. c. The university issuing his degree had confirmed that a degree in Mechanical and Production Engineering is equivalent to a degree in Mechanical Engineering. 12. The Tribunal after the scrutiny of the subjects studied by the petitioner in course of such engineering found favour with the petitioner and held that a degree in Mechanical and Production Engineering is equivalent to a degree in Mechanical Engineering. The Tribunal also found favour with the petitioner in respect of the three arguments advanced as noted hereinabove. 5 13. This Court has carefully heard learned counsel for the Administration/ writ petitioner and the private respondent/applicant before the Tribunal. This Court has also very carefully considered the entire pleadings and documents on record. 14. It is now well far too well settled that a person who participates in a recruitment process, and not coming within the scope of a plain reading of the terms and conditions and qualifications prescribed therefor, cannot turn around and challenge the said recruitment process upon failing to be successful. 15. What is however fundamental before this Court is that a prospective employer is conferred with the discretion to assess whether the qualifications of the candidate, in fact meet its requirement of personnel to man the post advertised. 16. The DoPT vide OM dated 31St December, 2010 debarred the mention of the expression equivalent qualification against the principal qualification prescribed and mentioned in the recruitment notice dated 27th August, 2018. 17. Even if it is true that a degree in Mechanical and Production Engineering can be equated to a degree in Mechanical Engineer that too at a given point of time, a recruitment process undertaken subsequently may always warrant a specified degree and specialization in a particular stream of Engineering. 6 18. Admittedly the petitioner had chosen and fell within the zone of consideration under the Electricity Department in the subject recruitment process. The absence of qualifications would, make the petitioner’s application void ab initio. Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/private respondent, next argued that several candidates were treated as Electrical and Electronic Engineering, had degrees is Electronic and Communication Engineering and BSC Electrical. This Court finds such qualifications in consonance and harmony with the principal degree in Electronic or Electrical Engineering obtained by such candidates. The said examples cannot be applied to the case of the applicant/private respondent since Mechanical and Production Engineering do not form part of the same category. Even if they do, it may not meet the requirement of the Electricity Department of the respondents. 19. The decision of the Electricity Department in 2019, to treat the petitioner’s degree in Mechanical and Production Engineering as equivalent to a normal Mechanical Engineering cannot be applied to the subject recruitment process. The decision, may be erroneous. It could have been subjective based on the requirements of the Electricity Department in 2019. The same may not be required in the current scope of the needs of the Department. It is in this context that we have held that an element of subjectivity must be allowed to a prospective employer. 7 20. A writ court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, much less a Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act of 1985 under Article 323 A and 323 B of the Constitution of India does not enter into disputed questions of fact or discretion exercise by recruiting authority. It cannot even sit in appeal over the same. An element of subjectivity must always be factored in favour of a recruiting authority to want candidates possessing a particular qualification to meet its requirements. There can be no judicial review of the same. 21. In the light of the above while the arguments of the applicant/private respondent would appear to be attractive at first glance a deeper scrutiny would indicate that the Tribunal had erred in holding that the petitioner must be treated as pure Mechanical Engineer, which qualification admittedly even the Electricity Department requires and has recruited in the past. 22. In the light of the above discussion this Court is of the view that the Tribunal had erred in passing the impugned order and the same is set aside. 23. WP.CT/32/2026 is thus allowed. 24. There shall however be no order as to costs. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)