Click the Play button to listen to article

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed two writ petitions filed by candidates participating in the Second State Level Selection Test (SLST), 2025, holding that they could not claim OBC-A/reserved category status after the Court had struck down the relevant OBC classifications before the recruitment process commenced.

Justice Aniruddha Roy held that the petitioners had no enforceable legal right to participate in the 2025 recruitment as OBC-A candidates, particularly since the Division Bench judgment in Amal Chandra Das v. State of West Bengal had attained finality before the SLST 2025 recruitment process began.

The petitioners, who had participated in the earlier SLST 2016 and were treated as untainted candidates, had argued that their reserved-category status was protected by the earlier judgments concerning the cancellation of the 2016 recruitment.

They had challenged notifications issued by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission requiring candidates to provide their OBC sub-category details, failing which their candidature would automatically be treated under the Unreserved/General category.

The petitioners contended that they had already appeared in the SLST 2025 examination as OBC-A candidates and their names had subsequently appeared in the Final Merit Panel. They argued that changing their category at this stage would amount to changing the “rules of the game” after the selection process had substantially progressed.

Rejecting the contention, the Court noted that the Division Bench judgment in Amal Chandra Das was delivered on May 22, 2024, while the notification for SLST 2025 was issued only on May 30, 2025.

The Court observed, “Thus as on the date of commencement of the SLST 2025 process the petitioners did not have any right to apply under OBC-A/Reserved category.”

Justice Roy noted that although the petitioners had participated in SLST 2025, the subsequent withdrawal of the State's Special Leave Petition against Amal Chandra Das resulted in the judgment attaining finality.

The Court therefore held that the petitioners could not derive a right to reserved-category status merely because they had been permitted to participate in the recruitment process.

The Court also considered the Supreme Court's decision in State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee), which upheld the cancellation of the entire SLST 2016 selection process.

The Supreme Court had held that even candidates not specifically found to be tainted could not retain their appointments because the entire selection process had been vitiated. Such candidates, however, were permitted to participate in a fresh selection process with appropriate age relaxation.

Justice Roy held that the protection granted to untainted candidates did not revive their earlier reserved-category rights.

“Since entire panel of SLST 2016 was terminated, the petitioners cannot claim any right thereunder,” the Court said.

It further held that the petitioners “cannot claim any right, under the Reserved category of OBC-A, after the Judgment In the matter of: Amal Chandra Das.”

The Court also rejected the argument that inclusion in the Final Merit Panel created a right in favour of the petitioners.

It observed that an aspirant cannot challenge a selection process as a matter of right and that participation in a recruitment process does not create a vested right until an appointment is made.

“In the facts of this case admittedly, no Appointment Letter has been issued in favour of the petitioner,” the Court noted.

The Court further held that the State's decision concerning the applicable reservation policy constituted a policy decision which had not been challenged by the petitioners.

Since the petitioners could no longer claim OBC-A status under the prevailing legal position, the Commission's notifications requiring them to declare their OBC sub-category or face treatment as Unreserved candidates could not be successfully challenged.

The petitioners had relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court to contend that the rules governing a selection process could not be altered after its commencement.

The High Court, however, found no change in the “rule of the game”. “The State has not changed the rule of the game but only has adopted the reservation policy of the State,” Justice Roy held.

The Court concluded that the Central School Service Commission had merely implemented the State's reservation policy and that the petitioners had no right to question it in the circumstances.

Case: Mehebuba Khatun & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No: WPA 23207 OF 2026

Click here to read order