Calcutta High Court Dismisses Plea Against WB Judiciary Exam Notifications Over Violation Of 3-Year Practice Requirement

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the recruitment notifications issued for the West Bengal Judicial Service Examinations, 2023 and 2024, which allegedly omitted the mandatory requirement of three years' practice as an Advocate for entry-level judicial posts.

While refusing to interfere with the ongoing recruitment process, the Court directed the authorities to ensure that future judicial service examinations are conducted in compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling in the All India Judges Association v. Union of India case mandating three years' practice at the Bar for Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts.

The order was passed by a bench of Justice Saugata Bhattacharya.

The plea had challenged two recruitment notifications issued by the West Bengal Public Service Commission on August 13, 2025 for the West Bengal Judicial Service Examinations of 2023 and 2024.

The petitioner, an Advocate claiming to have more than three years of continuous legal practice, argued that the notifications were unconstitutional as they failed to incorporate the mandatory eligibility condition laid down by the Supreme Court in the All India Judges' Association case. According to the plea, the apex court had, on May 20, 2025, declared three years' bona fide practice as an Advocate to be an essential qualification for entry-level Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts and directed that the requirement would apply prospectively to all recruitment processes initiated after the judgment.

It was contended that since the WBPSC notifications were issued nearly three months after the Supreme Court ruling, the authorities were bound to incorporate the three-year practice criterion. The petitioner argued that omission of the requirement rendered the notifications “arbitrary, unconstitutional, void ab initio” and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 141 of the Constitution.

The plea further submitted that the Preliminary Examination for Advertisement No. 19/2023 had already been scheduled for December 7, 2025, necessitating urgent judicial intervention to prevent continuation of a recruitment process allegedly founded on invalid eligibility norms.

The petitioner had sought quashing of the notifications, a declaration that three years' practice as an Advocate is mandatory for judicial service recruitment, and directions upon WBPSC to issue fresh notifications in line with the Supreme Court judgment.

However, the High Court declined to set aside the impugned recruitment notifications or stall the ongoing examination process. At the same time, the Court observed that future recruitment exercises must adhere to the law declared by the Supreme Court in the All India Judges' Association decision.

A detailed order is awaited.

Case Title Shayan Sachin Basu v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No: W.P.A. No. 27328 of 2025