SLST Aspirant Cannot Switch From General To EWS Category After Missing Cut-Off Date: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that an aspirant who participated in the Second SLST, 2025 selection process under the general category cannot subsequently seek conversion to the EWS category, particularly when the candidate did not possess an EWS certificate even within the cut-off date prescribed by the School Service Commission for switching categories.
Justice Aniruddha Roy dismissed a writ petition filed by Falguni Maity, who sought permission to change her candidature from the general category to the EWS category after subsequently obtaining an EWS certificate.
The Court held that permitting such a change would amount to altering the “rule of the game” of the recruitment process and could compromise the fairness of the selection process.
The petitioner was an aspirant for the Second SLST, 2025. Although she intended to participate under the EWS category, she did not possess a valid EWS certificate when applications were submitted.
Consequently, she applied as a general category candidate.
The petitioner submitted that she had already applied to the competent authority for an EWS certificate and that the certificate was subsequently issued in her favour. She therefore sought permission to change her candidature from the general category to EWS.
Reliance was also placed on an August 10, 2026 communication issued by the Joint Commissioner for Reservation and Special Secretary, requesting consideration of cases of EWS candidates who had applied under the general category.
The School Service Commission opposed the plea, pointing out that the petitioner had already participated as a general category candidate and that the Commission had prescribed a cut-off date for switching candidature from general to EWS.
The Court noted that the petitioner admittedly did not possess an EWS certificate when she applied for the selection process.
The Commission had subsequently announced a cut-off date providing candidates an opportunity to switch their candidature from the general category to EWS.
However, the petitioner did not apply for such a switch even within the prescribed period, as she did not have an EWS certificate at that stage.
Justice Roy held that once a well-defined rule governing the selection process had been prescribed and was not under challenge, it could not subsequently be altered to accommodate an individual candidate.
The Court observed: “When there is a codified well-defined rule of the game for the selection process without any challenge being thrown thereto, such rule of the game cannot be permitted to be altered or changed.”
It held that permitting such an alteration would violate the principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The Court further reasoned that the petitioner did not satisfy the eligibility requirement for participating as an EWS candidate when she applied for the selection process.
Therefore, unless the recruitment rules specifically permitted such conversion, she could not subsequently change her participation status from general to EWS.
Allowing such conversion, the Court said, could encroach upon the vacancies earmarked for EWS candidates and thereby affect the equality and fairness of the recruitment process.
The Court explained that candidates who had qualified to participate under the EWS category and had applied as such had a legitimate expectation of competing within the earmarked EWS zone.
If candidates who had originally applied under the general category were subsequently permitted to enter that zone, it would result in unequal participation.
The Court observed: “In a recruitment process unequals cannot be treated as equals.”
The petitioner relied on an August 21, 2026 order passed by a coordinate Bench in Sonali Paul & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Justice Roy held that the decision did not apply to the present case.
In Sonali Paul, the petitioners had possessed EWS certificates issued within the cut-off date prescribed by the Commission. In the present case, however, the petitioner did not possess the EWS certificate within the relevant period.
Accordingly, the Court held that the petitioner had no right to participate in the Second SLST, 2025 under the EWS category after having already participated as a general category candidate.
Case: Falguni Maity @ Falguni Maity Samanta & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors
Case No: WPA 23185 of 2026