Background Facts

The Public Service Commission, West Bengal issued the Employment Notice Advertisement for filling up the posts of Junior Engineers (Civil) in West Bengal Subordinate Service of Engineers under various departments, directorates and offices. The petitioners applied for the same. The first recommendation from the merit list was made on 20.01.2017, whereby 1082 candidates were recommended against the subsisting vacancies.

The petitioners filed an application seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It was revealed that the recruitment process did not take into consideration the existing vacancies of three departments i.e. Development and Planning Department, Micro and Small-Scale Enterprise and Textile Department and Sundarban Affairs Department. However the authorities stretched the merit list beyond its originally intended currency. The authorities made 55 recommendations against the posts remaining unfilled due to non-joining of earlier recommended candidates.

The petitioners approached the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal. It was found that candidates in the reserved category whose marks in the personality test were awarded as per relaxed standard were wrongly placed in the general standard merit list. The Tribunal disposed of the application without granting any relief to the petitioners.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed a writ petition before High Court of Calcutta

It was argued by the petitioners that undue benefit was being granted to reserved category candidates against vacancies meant for general category candidates, even though they had secured a qualifying position based on relaxed standard. The Tribunal should have cancelled such recommendation and have directed for placing the beneficiaries in the reserved category, so as to make way for the petitioners (unreserved category).

It was further submitted that once a candidate was given relaxation in assessment of merit, there was no question of placing the same candidate against unreserved/general category candidate.

On the other hand, it was argued by the respondents that the petitioners could not be recommended since the aggregate of their marks was lower than the aggregate marks obtained by the last recommended candidates of their category. It was argued that the final merit list was prepared on aggregate of marks obtained by candidates in both stages, and difference in qualifying marks for personality test was not relevant.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was observed by the Division Bench that with respect to the migration of reserved category candidates in unreserved merit list, the final merit list was prepared on the basis of total marks obtained in both written examination and personality test. The aggregate formed the basis of consideration. It was further observed that the prescription of lower qualifying marks in personality test for reserved category candidates and unreserved candidates would not support the petitioners.

It was further observed that the scheme provided for assessment of all candidates based on aggregate marks. Further no provision barred consideration of reserved category candidate against unreserved vacancy if they availed benefit of relaxed standard in personality test. Therefore, there was no scope for grievance that 55 candidates could not be placed in unreserved category by virtue of their merit based on aggregate marks.

It was noted by the Bench that with respect to non-inclusion of vacancies in three departments, the Commission clarified that at the time filling up vacancies was initiated, no vacancies were reported in respect of these departments. The Commission advertised only in respect of vacancies reported by Government departments.

It was further observed that regarding submission for direction to consider appointment against other vacancies, the petitioners have not made out a case that any of them were next in merit after last selected candidate. Further that even if vacancies were made available, there was no certainty that all petitioners would occupy them.

It was held by the Division Bench that petitioners have not suffered hardship as 55 persons occupied unreserved category based on their merit as per Scheme and Minutes, and there is no vacancy left. The last recommendations were made on 09.10.2018, and on expiry of panel, the State cannot be directed to fill up vacancies or to consider names of empaneled candidates as a matter of course.

With the aforesaid observations, the Tribunal's order was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Koushik Chatterjee & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No. : W.P.S.T.218 of 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya, Ld. Sr.Adv., Kallol Basu, Suman Banerjee, Shreejita Sen

Counsel for the Respondents : Shraboni Sarkar, Umme Habiba Khatun