IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ******** PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMITA DAS DE WP.CT/20/2026 THE LT. GOVERNOR AND OTHERS ... PETITIONERs Versus KUMARI AMRIN NAZNEEN AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS For the Petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Kumar For the respondents : Mrs. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv. Mr. Adarsh Ilango Ms. Sohini Biswas Heard on : April 16, 2026 Judgment on : April 16, 2026 SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners/authorities contends that the learned Tribunal erred in law and de hors the concerned Recruitment Notice dated July 30, 2018 in setting aside the decision of the petitioners/authorities to omit the name of the respondent No. 3, a candidate who participated pursuant to such Recruitment Notice, in the final list of candidates even after the said candidate having turned out successful in the initial written examinations. 2 2. Learned counsel submits that the learned Tribunal proceeded on the premise that since the respondents therein (present appellants) were aware of the one-year certificate course before publishing of vacancy notification, even if they had rejected the candidature of the applicant, the same was not valid. 3. Learned counsel places much stress on the language of the concerned Recruitment Notice dated July 30, 2018 where, under the column “Essential (Educational Qualification)”, having a two-year Diploma/Certificate course in Surveying was one of the essential conditions to cross the eligibility threshold to participate in the said recruitment process. 4. It is contended that after the private respondent No.3 was permitted to take the written examinations on a mistaken approach adopted by the appellant authorities, it was detected subsequently that she had only a one-year certificate and, as such, did not come within the ambit of the eligibility criteria. 5. Learned counsel further submits that it is always open to the authorities to rectify their error, even if detected subsequently, and to cancel the candidature of a person who did not meet any eligibility criterion. 6. In support of such contention, learned counsel also relies on the first bullet-point “Instruction” annexed to the Recruitment Notice which provides that if at any stage of recruitment or thereafter, it is found that any information furnished by the candidate in his online application is 3 false/incorrect or the candidate had suppressed any relevant information or the candidate otherwise does not satisfy the eligibility criteria for the post, her candidature will be cancelled forthwith. 7. While addressing the arguments of the respondent No. 3, to the effect that the interpretation by the certificate-issuing authority itself as well as the Labour Commissionerate in their orders/circulars clearly goes on to show that a one-year Certificate course is equivalent to a two-years Certificate course and that during the three-year period immediately preceding the Recruitment Notice, only the one-year Certificate course was available, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the said documents only suggested a proposed amendment to the existing Recruitment Notice/Rules, thereby indicating that in terms of the Recruitment Rules as they stood on the relevant date of the concerned Recruitment Notice, the expression “two year” qualified both Diploma and Certificate courses. Otherwise, it is submitted, there would be no necessity to suggest any amendment to the Rules. 8. With regard to the alleged other persons holding one-year Certificates who have given appointment to the self-same post of Surveyor previously, it is argued that unless it is before the Court as to what were the exact terms of the relevant Recruitment Rules and Recruitment Notice pertaining to the concerned Departments appointing those persons, it cannot be ascertained whether the same principles as governing the present recruitment would also be applicable to those. 4 9. Further, it is argued that in order to assess whether a one-year Certificate course is equivalent to a two-year Certificate course in Surveying, the opinion of an expert committee, or at least experts in the field, is required to be obtained. 10. It is contended that the learned Tribunal, accordingly, proceeded on an erroneous premise in overlooking the mandatory essential educational qualifications as stipulated in the concerned recruitment notice in setting aside the decision of the petitioners/authorities. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3/ candidate, on the other hand, places reliance on several documents, arguing that those were considered by the Tribunal before coming to its conclusions. For example, by an information furnished by the Public Information Officer of the office of the Labour Commissioner, Port Blair dated March 8, 2019, it was clarified that both one-year and two-year course certificates, which are issued as National Trade Certificate (NTC) by the National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT), are recognised by the Government of India. Further, placing reliance on a communication by the Principal of the Industrial Training Institute, which issues such certificates, dated October 11, 2027, it is contended by learned counsel that in terms of the same, the duration of Surveyor Trade under Craftsmen Training Scheme had been reduced from two years to one year and it was further observed therein that in terms of the concerned Gazette Notification, all Government Organisations and Public Sector Enterprises were required to define eligibility criteria for all positions in 5 terms of NSQF levels by amending the Recruitment Rules. It is argued that in terms of the said communication, it was recognized that one- year Certificate courses and two-year Certificate courses offered for the curriculum of Surveyorship stand on similar footing. 12. Again, learned counsel for respondent no.3 relies on a communication dated January 24, 2019 issued by the Labour Commissioner to all the Heads of Department, from which it is evident that candidates possessing one-year NTC in Surveyor Trade shall also be considered for the post of Surveyor. 13. Thus, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 submits that the Recruitment Notice dated July 30, 2018 has to be construed in proper perspective by lending an interpretation which is in favour of the candidates and not of the authorities. Proceeding from such perspective, it is argued that the expression “Two (2) year Diploma/Certificate Course in Surveying” should be construed to mean that there is a disjunction between the expressions ‘Diploma’ and ‘Certificate’ insofar as the criterion of two years is concerned and the said time period only applies to Diploma Courses and not Certificate Courses, which are dissociated by the use of the mark “/”. 14. It is further argued that for the self-same post, during previous periods, other candidates holding one-year Certificates were appointed. Thus, on the premise of principles of equality as well, the petitioners, it is argued, ought to be consistent in their interpretation of the 6 Recruitment Rules. As such, it is argued that the learned Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned judgement. 15. Upon a careful consideration of the Recruitment Notice dated July 30, 2018, we find that “two-year Diploma/Certificate Course in Surveying” has been enumerated therein as an essential educational qualification. 16. There is no manner of doubt as well that in the instructions following the eligibility criteria in the said Notice, the authorities are vested with the power to cancel the candidature if subsequently it is found out that the candidate otherwise does not satisfy the eligibility criteria or suppressed relevant information. However, the said Recruitment Notice cannot be read in isolation and has to be construed in conjunction with the Recruitment Rules, which have been bodily lifted into the Recruitment Notice itself and are a part of the Recruitment Notice, under Schedule III thereof. 17. From Entry 8 of the said Recruitment Rules (Schedule III), we find similar language being used as reproduced in the Recruitment Notice as essential education qualification. 18. Reading the two in conjunction, we find that the Recruitment Rules have been interpreted by several Heads of Departments, including the Director of Employment and Training, the Office of the Labour Commissioner and, more importantly, by the Industrial Training Institute (ITI) itself, which offers the courses in question as well as issues the certificates in respect thereof. 7 19. From the ITI document dated October 11/12, 2017, annexed at page 62 of the writ petition, we find that two-year and one-year Certificate courses of Surveyorship have been placed on the same footing by the ITI itself. 20. It is evident from the suggestions of amendment made by the ITI on October 17, 2018 that one or two years NTC under Craftsmen Training Scheme in Surveyor Trade approved by National Council for Vocational Training, recognised by Industrial Training Institutes, have been placed on the same footing and have been interpreted to give equal opportunities to candidates possessing NTCs either for one year or two years period of training in Surveyor Trade. We also find from the said document that since 2015 to 2017, the three years which immediately preceded the Recruitment Notice-in-question dated July 30, 2018, only the one-year Certificate course was prevailing. 21. If we interpret the Recruitment Notice in the above backdrop, it would entail that the condition of a two-years course Certificate as an essential eligibility criterion would negate itself, since only one-year Certificate courses were available for the period immediately preceding such Recruitment Notice. If the said criterion is interpreted to mean that only two-years Certificate course holders in Surveying were eligible to be appointed as Surveyors, then the fresh certificate-holders for the immediately three preceding years, when only the one-year course was available, would all get eliminated from the purview of the recruitment process, thereby reducing the zone of consideration by effectively 8 shutting out such fresh certificate-holders, which cannot be a feasible mode of interpretation of the Recruitment Notice. 22. That apart, the Recruitment Rules, which is the genesis of the Recruitment Notice, itself has been interpreted by several Departments of the Islands Administration by equating the one-year Certificate course with the two-year Certificate course. 23. Even the ITI itself, which has been issuing such certificates, equated the one-year and the two-year Certificate courses. 24. Thus, in the event a crunch situation arises where we have no option but to interpret the concerned essential educational qualification either in favour of the petitioners/authorities or the candidates, the interpretation, it is well-settled, ought to go in favour of the candidates, so as to ensure that the zone of consideration is the widest, in order to encourage competition and find out the best talents. 25. Even otherwise, the Literal Rule of Interpretation, if applied, would negate the eligibility criterion itself and render it meaningless, since only the one-year Certificate course was available at the relevant juncture and an eligibility criterion requiring a candidate to have a two- year course Certificate would be an empty and meaningless parameter. Thus, we choose to purposively interpret the essential eligibility criterion of Diploma/Certificate Courses by disjuncting the expressions ‘Diploma’ and ‘Certificate’ and holding that the “two-year period” requirement applies only to Diploma Courses, which have been disjuncted from Certificate courses by use of the mark ‘/’. 9 26. Learned counsel for the appellant authorities has also cites an unreported coordinate Bench decision in Vibha Rao and others vs. Vicky Wilson and others (MAT/49/ 2024) where, under similar circumstances, a contrary view was apparently taken by the coordinate Bench, by upholding the decision of the authorities in insisting upon the essential qualification as per the rules and the advertisement. 27. However, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/candidate, the essential educational qualification in the concerned Rules/Recruitment Notice was couched in a different language than a present one. In the Rules/Notice governing the said case, the eligibility criterion was “02 years Certificate Course”, thereby tying up the certificate course specifically with the two-year time period, unlike the present case. As such, the said judgement is not germane for the present consideration. 28. Even otherwise, since the learned Tribunal, after careful consideration of all the documents which have been placed before us, came to one of the plausible conclusions possible on the materials before the Tribunal, there would be no justification for this Court, sitting in writ jurisdiction, to substitute its own views for that of the learned Tribunal. 29. Hence, we do not find any illegality of irregularity in the impugned judgement of the learned Tribunal. 30. Accordingly, WP.CT/20/2026 is dismissed on contest, thereby affirming the impugned judgement dated July 23, 2025 passed by the 10 Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata (Circuit sitting at Port Blair). 31. There will be no order as to costs. 32. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.) I agree. (SMITA DAS DE, J.)