Plea In Calcutta High Court Challenges WB Judiciary Exam Notifications, Says Advt Violates SC's 3-Year Practice Norm

A writ petition has been filed before the Calcutta High Court challenging two recruitment notifications issued by the West Bengal Public Service Commission (WBPSC) on 13 August 2025 for the West Bengal Judicial Service Examinations of 2023 and 2024. The petitioner contends that the notifications unlawfully omit the mandatory eligibility requirement of three years' practice as an Advocate, as declared by the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India (20 May 2025).

It is alleged that the notifications, being the first statutory invitations issued after the judgment, were constitutionally bound to incorporate the three-year criterion, and their failure to do so renders them arbitrary, unconstitutional, void ab initio, and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 141.

The matter is set to be listed before a bench of Justice Saugata Bhattacharya at the new motion stage.

The petitioner, an enrolled Advocate with over three years of continuous legal practice, submits that he fully satisfies the eligibility criteria mandated by the Supreme Court and has a legitimate expectation of a recruitment process compliant with the apex court's ruling.

On 20 May 2025, the Supreme Court held that three years' bona fide practice as an Advocate is an essential and mandatory qualification for entry-level Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) posts. The Court directed that this requirement would apply prospectively to all recruitment processes initiated after the judgment. Since WBPSC's formal notifications were issued nearly three months after the judgment, they were bound to include this requirement.

It is submitted that the omission of a mandatory judicially-prescribed criterion makes the notifications illegal from inception. They cannot be cured by subsequent clarification or administrative justification.

It is also argued that WBPSC has announced that the Preliminary Examination for Adv. No. 19/2023 will be held on 7 December 2025, prompting the petitioner to seek urgent interim relief to prevent the recruitment from proceeding on the basis of invalid eligibility criteria.

The petitioner prays for the quashing of the recruitment notifications dated 13 August 2025, and a declaration that three years' Advocate practice is a mandatory eligibility criterion. 

He also seeks directions to WBPSC to issue fresh notifications compliant with the Supreme Court judgment and an interim stay on further steps in the selection process.

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

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