JUDGMENT : Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J. 1. The petitioner sought issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the West Bengal Public Service Commission hereinafter referred to as (WBPSC) to allow him to appear in the interview for the post of Surveyor having been arbitrarily denied participation despite qualifying in the written examination. 2. The petitioner qualified as a B.Com (Pass) Graduate from Calcutta University and held a Diploma in Surveying from Daulatabad Sri Ram Chandra Survey Society, in addition to requisite experience in survey work. 3. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 02.12.2011 for recruitment of 61 Surveyors and Draftsmen, the petitioner applied for the same with all requisite academic and technical qualifications. His application was scrutinized and accepted. Thereafter, he was permitted to appear in the written examination, and successfully passed the same. 4. The petitioner’s name was published at Serial No. 4 in the list of successful candidates and was called for interview scheduled on 15.07.2013. Owing to administrative reasons, the interview was deferred. 5. Subsequently, by letter dated 13.09.2013, the respondents for the first time alleged the petitioner to have lacked three years’ of experience in survey work – a ground not raised earlier, despite the fact of the petitioner having submitted experience certificates evincing requisite experience. He had also been permitted to appear in the All India Trade Test (Surveyor) under NCVT guidelines, which itself required three years’ prior experience 6. To his utter dismay the revised interview list dated 22.10.2013, omitted the petitioner’s name without justification, disregarding his inclusion in the earlier interview list. 7. The petitioner vehemently expressed the respondents, having scrutinized his qualifications and experience earlier, could not subsequently reject his candidature on vague and baseless grounds. Any lapse or negligence, if at all, was on the part of the respondents not attributable to the petitioner. 8. The action of the respondents was therefore arbitrary, discriminatory, and mala fide, violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Being “State” within the meaning of Article 12, the respondents are obliged to act fairly, reasonably, and in accordance with law, which they have failed do discharge. 9. The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner submitted as follows:- The petitioner, possessing all requisite qualifications including a Diploma in Surveying and more than eight years’ practical experience, was duly permitted to appear in the written examination. 9. The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner submitted as follows:- The petitioner, possessing all requisite qualifications including a Diploma in Surveying and more than eight years’ practical experience, was duly permitted to appear in the written examination. Upon due scrutiny, his candidature was accepted, and he was successful in the written test. The petitioner was originally called for interview on 15.07.2013 and placed at Serial No. 4 in the first interview list. The said interview was cancelled for reasons undisclosed to the petitioner. This cancellation was due to the respondents’ own lapses, not due to any fault or negligence on the part of the petitioner. A second interview was rescheduled on 22.10.2013, but the petitioner’s name was omitted. By letter dated 13.09.2013, the respondents cancelled the earlier call letter regarding interview alleging the petitioner lacked the requisite 3 years’ practical experience in survey work which was arbitrary, as the petitioner had already furnished experience certificates proving more than 8 years’ of experience. He had also been permitted to appear in the All India Trade Test (Surveyor) under NCVT norms, which itself required 3 years’ prior experience. No stipulation existed in the advertisement requiring 3 years’ experience to be the exclusive qualification necessitating Trade Test. 10. The Learned Advocate representing the respondents submitted as follows:- The respondents contended upon further scrutiny, the petitioner was found lacking in the required experience. The petitioner, by supplementary affidavit dated 27.06.2024, rebutted these claims and clarified higher academic qualification (B.Com.) could not be a ground for disqualification. His teaching and training experience in a recognized vocational institute aptly constituted valid survey experience. The insistence that experience must be after the Trade Test was baseless, since no such condition was stipulated in the advertisement. By order dated 21.10.2013, this Hon’ble High Court directed any appointment made would abide by the outcome of the writ petition, leading the respondents to keep two posts vacant (in the Departments of Public Health Engineering and Municipal Affairs). The petitioner’s contentions that his exclusion from the rescheduled interview was motivated by extraneous considerations and his inability to meet unlawful demands of influential persons were denied and objected to. The respondents, being “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, were bound to act fairly and reasonably and in the instant case their actions, however, were not arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21. The respondents, being “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, were bound to act fairly and reasonably and in the instant case their actions, however, were not arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21. On prima facie scrutiny, the petitioner appeared eligible based on a “Diploma in Survey” certificate from Daulatabad Sri Ramkrishna Survey Training Society and was issued an interview call. The process was deferred due to Panchayat Elections in 2013. Upon re-verification, his candidature was cancelled. The petitioner obtained the National Trade Certificate (Surveyor) only in 2011, whereas his experience certificates pertain to periods prior to 2011. Experience gained without the requisite theoretical qualification was not accepted. The experience certificates furnished were not from NCVT-recognized organizations. Teaching experience in vocational stream was not treated as practical survey experience. As per the advertisement, possession of both technical qualification and 3 years’ practical experience were essential. 11. The petitioner applied to be recruited amongst the 61 Surveyors and Draftsman relating to the Advertisement No.16/2011 which stated essential qualification as per the advertisement stated as follows:- (i) Advertisement: a. Surveyor, Public Health Engineering Department (Advt.16(1)/2011) b. Surveyor, Municipal Affairs Department (Advt.16(2)/2011) and c. Draftsman, Municipal Affairs Department (Advt.16(3)/2011) The present matter related to the posts of Surveyor under the first two Departments. (ii) Essential Qualitification: a. Madhyamik or equivalent; b. National Trade Certificate (Surveyor) from ITI/NCVT, or Senior Surveyorship Certificate from West Bengal Survey Institute, Bandel, or equivalent; c. 3 years’ practical experience in Survey works; d. Age not exceeding 37 years as on 01.01.2011. 12. The petitioner submitted credentials at the time of filing the application to the following extent:- (i) Academic Madhyamik (1990), Higher Secondary (1992), B.Com (1994), National Trade Certificate in Surveyor (2011) (ii) Surveyor at S.S. Consulting Firm (01.04.2003-28.11.2005) (iii) Survey Helper at Indian Survey Engineering Consultant (01.12.2005-31.05.2006) (iv) Teacher (Vocational Stream) at Raghudebbati Sadharaner Vidyalaya (03.06.2006-16.12.2011) (v) Date of Birth: 17.04.1974 (Age 36 years and 8 months on cut-off date). 13. From the scrutiny of the documents, the respondent authority rejected his candidature on the grounds of ineligibility for the following reasons:- (i) On prima facie scrutiny, the petitioner appeared eligible based on a “Diploma in Survey” certificate from Daulatabad Sri Ramkrishna Survey Training Society and was issued an interview call. (ii) The process was deferred due to Panchayat Elections in 2013. Upon re-verification, his candidature was cancelled. (ii) The process was deferred due to Panchayat Elections in 2013. Upon re-verification, his candidature was cancelled. (iii) The petitioner obtained the National Trade Certificate (Surveyor) only in 2011 whereas his experience certificates pertained to periods prior to 2011. (iv) Experience gained without the requisite theoretical qualification was not accepted. (v) The experience certificates furnished were not from NCVT- recognized organizations. (vi) Teaching experience in vocational stream was not treated as practical survey experience. (vii) As per the advertisement, possession of both technical qualification and 3 years’ practical experience was essential. 14. The petitioner having received the admit card appeared for the examination conducted on 7.10.12 for the post of surveyor as aforesaid and successfully qualified in the examination and his name appeared in the list of successful candidates published by the Public Service Commission on 15.07.2013 accordingly. The petitioner was called for interview to be held on 15th of July, 2013 at the office of the Public Service Commission which however was deferred due to unavoidable circumstances. On 13th September 2013, the petitioner was forbidden from appearing for the interview as aforesaid for lack of essential 3 years’ experience disentitling him to appear for the interview and subsequently be considered for the post of Surveyor as aforesaid. 15. Apart from the educational qualification, the petitioner in accordance to the criteria stipulated in advertisement No. 16/2011was to possess National Trade Certificate from Industrial Training Institute, in the position of Surveyor or Senior Surveyorship certificate from West Bengal Survey Institute, Bandel or its equivalent as well as 3 years’ practical experience in Survey works. 16. The petitioner had annexed a certificate dated 02.12.2005 issued by one S.S. Consulting firm which subscribed the petitioner to have been an employee of the said firm for the period 1st of April, 2003 to 20th November, 2005. It further stated that the petitioner was engaged in different types of Survey Projects such as Road Project, Pipeline Project, Topographical Survey, Industrial Survey equipped with the functioning of certain ultramodern and sophisticated instruments. 17. The petitioner had further submitted a certificate issued by Indian Survey Engineering Consultants (ISCON Bandel, Hooghly) stating the petitioner to have worked with the survey squad as a Survey helper from 1st December, 2005 to 31st May, 2006 in demarcation Survey jobs at Jupiter Alloys and Steel Pvt. Ltd., Shahaganj, District- Hooghly. 17. The petitioner had further submitted a certificate issued by Indian Survey Engineering Consultants (ISCON Bandel, Hooghly) stating the petitioner to have worked with the survey squad as a Survey helper from 1st December, 2005 to 31st May, 2006 in demarcation Survey jobs at Jupiter Alloys and Steel Pvt. Ltd., Shahaganj, District- Hooghly. The petitioner further submitted a certificate dated 16.12.2011, issued by the headmaster Raghudebbati Sadharaner Vidyalaya (Vocational Stream, District Howrah) stating that the petitioner was the teacher of the aforesaid school, with effect from 3rd June, 2006 till 16th December, 2011. During his involvement as a teacher the petitioner carried out Surveying (Theory and Practical class) VIII+ Level Short Term Course under West Bengal Council of Vocational Training & Education Course’s Amin Survey. 18. The petitioner had further acted as a Practical Examiner to conduct examination of VIII plus Vocational Course in the trade of AMSV & EHMW. 19. The aforesaid documents submitted along with the application to have been filed in compliance with the Advertisement No. 16/2011 did not comply with the requisite certificate to have been issued by the National Trade Certificate from Industrial Training Institute in the trade of Surveyor or Senior Surveyorship Certificate from West Bengal Survey Institute, Bandel or its equivalent. Obtaining the certificate from the Institutes as mentioned above granted the qualification to perform Survey work for 3 years in Practical field. 20. The aforesaid certificate so issued was to credit and certify the petitioner as a Surveyor or Senior Surveyor endorsing him to be authoritatively recognized and designated as a Surveyor or Senior Surveyor to pursue such avocation. 21. The petitioner stated to have worked as Surveyor from 1st April, 2003 to 20th November, 2005 at S.S. Consulting firm which did not mention the petitioner to have acquired National Trade Certificate as aforesaid. The document relating to his engagement at Indian Survey Engineering Consultants referred the petitioner to be a “Survey Helper” contrary to that of a Surveyor or a Senior Surveyor. 22. From 3rd June, 2006 till the date of filing an application the petitioner worked as a teacher imparting Vocational Training and conducting Survey Work as a part of Teaching and Training Curriculum. 23. 22. From 3rd June, 2006 till the date of filing an application the petitioner worked as a teacher imparting Vocational Training and conducting Survey Work as a part of Teaching and Training Curriculum. 23. The petitioner had filed a document to have qualified the Trade Test in the Trade of Surveyor held in July, 2011 prior to the Advertisement dated 02.12.2011, which did not enable the petitioner to acquire 3 years of Practical Experience in Survey work by dint of the same. The terms and conditions prescribed in the Advertisements are to be strictly complied with. Any deviation therefrom cannot entitle the candidate to claim an appointment at a particular post wherein the requisite qualifications have not been adhered to. The petitioner obtained the National Trade Certificate issued by the Ministry of Labor and Employment, Government of India in connection with the Trade Test in the Trade of Surveyor held in July, 2011 and also a provisional National Trade Certificate issued by the Government of West Bengal which had been dated 15th December, 2011 later to the date of the advertisement published on 2.12.2011. The aforesaid Trade Certificate was issued in favor of the petitioner as a private candidate contrary to the National Trade Certificate to have been issued from Industrial Training Institute. Nowhere in the aforesaid certificates the training to have been imparted to the petitioner from the Industrial Training Institute or the West Bengal Survey Institute, Bandel or its equivalent had been mentioned. 24. The petitioner had worked as a teacher imparting theoretical and practical knowledge to the students which did not signify his practical experience in the Survey work being a part of a Training School as aforesaid. Moreover, the service rendered by the petitioner as a Surveyor or a Survey helper was prior to the National Trade Certificate to have been issued in his favor on 15.12.2011 after the date of the advertisement, 02.12.2011. 25. The distinction between the training imparted in a school for learning or teaching survey and the practical experience in survey work is both substantial and significant. Training in a school is essentially pedagogical. It is imparted within a controlled academic environment where the rudimentary principles of survey work are inculcated in the student for academic purpose fortified with practical classes. Such instruction is didactic, theoretical and demonstrative in character, intended to furnish the learner with the science of surveying. 26. Training in a school is essentially pedagogical. It is imparted within a controlled academic environment where the rudimentary principles of survey work are inculcated in the student for academic purpose fortified with practical classes. Such instruction is didactic, theoretical and demonstrative in character, intended to furnish the learner with the science of surveying. 26. Practical survey work belongs to an altogether different realm of applying the theoretical and practical lesson learnt into field work, data accumulation, boundary demarcations, etc. Institution provides formal education, training sharpens practical skills and the professional survey work is the actual execution in the field. 27. The petitioner is indubitably qualified to be a graduate, however, more inclined towards academic pursuits rather than denoted to practical experiential character in survey work. 28. Pertinently the Trade National Certificate was not issued from Industrial Training Institute or the West Bengal Training Institute Bandel or its equivalent as annexed in Page 33 and 34 of the instant Writ Petition did not mention the name of the Institute and cited the petitioner to be a private candidate. The petitioner therefore had failed to comply with the essential qualifications and was rightly refused to appear in the interview as aforesaid. Moreover, a candidate similarly circumstanced had also been prohibited from appearing for the interview and the candidature had been equally rejected. The Appointing Authority has the discretion to accept or reject the candidature if the criteria mentioned in the advertisement seeking application to recruitment to a post are not fulfilled in strict parlance. Having qualified for the written examination does not confer vested right in the favor of the petitioner to be considered for appearing in the interview test if on further scrutiny the documents concerning the qualifications of the petitioner had not been strictly adhering to the requirements essentially enumerated in the advertisement. The Appointing Authority has the right to reject any candidature contrary to its estimation in terms of non-compliance of necessary educational documents as also the ones certifying the requisite experience. 29. In view of the above discussions, the instant writ petition being WPA 33043 of 2013 is dismissed. 30. There is no order as to costs. 31. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all formalities.