Calcutta High Court Orders Disclosure of Written Exam Marks in West Bengal Police Constable Recruitment for Enhanced Transparency

Introduction

In a significant ruling emphasizing transparency in public recruitment processes, the Calcutta High Court has directed the West Bengal Police recruitment authorities to publish the marks obtained by candidates in the written examination, along with their respective categories, for those shortlisted for the Physical Measurement Test (PMT) and Physical Efficiency Test (PET). This decision, delivered by Justice Saugata Bhattacharya in the writ petition Chandan Dhara & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (W.P.A. No. 484 of 2026), addresses concerns raised by candidates who argued that the lack of such disclosure undermines fairness in the selection for constable positions. The court's order, issued on February 3, 2026, comes amid the ongoing recruitment drive under the West Bengal Police (Recruitment of Constables) Rules, 2024 , and highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring equitable opportunities in government hiring. Petitioners, comprising candidates from various categories including Unreserved, Scheduled Caste, OBC-A, and OBC-B, challenged the publication of a shortlist of 60,178 candidates without these critical details, following a written test conducted after a March 5, 2024, notification.

This ruling not only resolves the immediate grievance but also sets a precedent for multi-stage recruitment processes, particularly in law enforcement, where physical and merit-based evaluations intersect. By mandating disclosure before the physical stages, the court aims to prevent eligible candidates from being unfairly excluded and to uphold the principles of openness in public employment.

Case Background

The case stems from the West Bengal Police's recruitment process for constables, initiated through a notification dated March 5, 2024, governed by the West Bengal Police (Recruitment of Constables) Rules, 2024 . This notification outlined a structured selection procedure involving a written examination, followed by PMT, PET, and viva voce (interview). The written test served as the primary filter for shortlisting candidates for the subsequent physical and oral evaluations. Following the written exam, the recruitment authority released a list of 60,178 candidates qualified for PMT, PET, and viva voce. However, this list merely named the candidates without revealing their scores in the written test or their category affiliations, such as Unreserved (UR), Scheduled Caste (SC), Other Backward Class-A (OBC-A), or Other Backward Class-B (OBC-B).

The petitioners, Chandan Dhara and others, were participants in this process under the Home Guard category and belonged to diverse reserved and unreserved groups. They filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution , arguing that the omission of marks and categories obscured the merit-based shortlisting, potentially allowing arbitrary exclusions. The events leading to the dispute were straightforward: the recruitment drive began with the notification, the written exam was held, and the shortlist was published around late 2025, prompting the petition heard on January 22, 2026, and decided on February 3, 2026. No prior litigation history was noted, but the case drew on broader concerns about opacity in state police recruitments.

The central legal questions revolved around whether the recruitment rules implicitly required such disclosures at the shortlisting stage and if non-disclosure violated constitutional guarantees of equality ( Article 14 ) and non-arbitrariness in public employment. Additionally, the court examined the balance between transparency and the integrity of later evaluation stages like the viva voce. This backdrop underscores a recurring theme in Indian service jurisprudence: ensuring that initial merit assessments are verifiable to prevent downstream biases.

Arguments Presented

The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Anindya Lahiri along with Advocates Samrat Dey Paul and Biplab Pal, contended that the written examination was the sole determinant for eligibility in PMT and PET, making it imperative for candidates to know their merit position and category-wise rankings. They argued that withholding marks and categories defeated the purpose of a transparent selection process, especially in a public recruitment affecting thousands. Drawing from the Supreme Court's ruling in State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) & Ors. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 719), they emphasized that disclosure fosters accountability and allows candidates to verify if shortlisting adhered to reservation quotas and merit criteria. Factual points included the petitioners' diverse category backgrounds, illustrating how non-disclosure could disadvantage reserved candidates in challenging potential irregularities. Legally, they invoked principles of natural justice, asserting that secrecy at this juncture could lead to exclusion of bona fide qualifiers without recourse.

Opposing the petition, the State of West Bengal, through Additional Advocate General Amal Kumar Sen and Advocate Lal Mohan Basu, maintained that the rules did not mandate pre-viva voce disclosure of written marks, as the final merit would incorporate all stages. They warned that revealing scores early could disrupt the "level playing field," potentially influencing candidates' performance in physical tests or biasing the interview panel. Relying heavily on Harkirat Singh Ghuman v. Punjab & Haryana High Court ((2022) 19 SCC 787), the State argued that in processes involving interviews, premature mark disclosure might foster preconceived notions, compromising impartiality. Key factual assertions included the recruitment's multi-stage design, where physical fitness and oral skills were equally vital, and legal points stressed deferring full details until after viva voce to preserve evaluation integrity. The State portrayed the petitioners' demand as premature, potentially complicating the ongoing process for 60,178 candidates.

These arguments framed a classic tension between immediate transparency and holistic process protection, with both sides leveraging Supreme Court precedents to bolster their positions.

Legal Analysis

Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya's reasoning meticulously dissected the arguments, prioritizing transparency while distinguishing the instant case from cited precedents. The court first acknowledged the recruitment's structure under the 2024 Rules, noting the written exam's pivotal role in gating access to PMT and PET—intermediate stages absent in the precedents relied upon by the State.

Central to the analysis was the rejection of the State's interpretation of Harkirat Singh Ghuman . In that case, the Supreme Court held that in judicial service recruitments where written exams directly precede viva voce, disclosing marks beforehand could bias interviewers aware of candidates' prior performance (paragraph 32). However, the court here observed that Harkirat involved no intervening physical tests; merit was determined post-interview without such buffers. In contrast, the constable recruitment featured PMT and PET as qualifiers dependent solely on written scores. Justice Bhattacharyya noted: "In Harkirat Singh Ghuman (supra) there was no other phase of selection process in between written examination and viva voce but in the present case... there are two other phases namely PMT and PET." This distinction underscored that non-disclosure would irreparably harm candidates excluded from physical stages, as PMT and PET would conclude before any post-viva voce revelation.

The court favorably referenced State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya , which reinforced transparency in public selections, implying that merit-based shortlists must be verifiable to uphold Article 14 's equality mandate. Broader principles applied included the constitutional imperative for open government processes, preventing arbitrariness in quota implementations. The ruling clarified that while viva voce integrity is paramount, it does not justify opacity in foundational stages; disclosure here would not reach interviewers until after physical tests, mitigating bias concerns.

No specific statutes beyond the recruitment rules were invoked, but the analysis invoked writ jurisdiction's scope to enforce fairness. Distinctions were drawn between direct exam-to-interview flows (as in Harkirat ) and buffered multi-stage processes, emphasizing context-specific application of precedents. The court's logic extended to practicalities: without marks, candidates could not challenge cut-offs or category errors, potentially violating natural justice.

This nuanced reasoning not only resolves the petition but enriches service law by mandating stage-appropriate disclosures, influencing how recruitment boards handle interim results.

Key Observations

The judgment is replete with incisive observations on transparency's role in recruitment. Key excerpts include:

• "Question arises for consideration is whether publication of aforesaid list without indicating marks obtained by the respective candidates in written examination and the categories of the candidates is permissible or not." This frames the core issue, highlighting the list's inadequacy.

• "Disclosure of these particulars would maintain transparency in the selection process." Attributed to the petitioners' counsel, this underscores the foundational argument for openness.

• "If candidates do not find place in the list prior to PMT and PET and if they do not come within the zone of consideration based on merit which is assessed on the basis of written test they will not be permitted to appear in PMT and PET. Therefore, it emanates that written examination is the basis for participation in PMT and PET." This pivotal quote elucidates the written test's gating function.

• "If court accepts contention of learned Additional Advocate General that list with all particulars shall be published after viva voce in that event bona fide candidates may lose opportunity to participate in PMT and PET which will be over by that time." It warns of irreversible prejudice from delayed disclosure.

• "In aforesaid conspectus and in order to maintain transparency in the selection process... concerned respondent authorities are directed to publish list of selected candidates for holding PMT and PET disclosing marks awarded to those candidates in written examination and their respective categories." This encapsulates the directive's rationale.

These observations, drawn verbatim from the judgment, emphasize the court's commitment to procedural equity.

Court's Decision

The Calcutta High Court disposed of the writ petition with a clear directive: the respondent authorities must publish the shortlist of candidates for PMT and PET, including their written examination marks and categories as per the March 5, 2024, notification, within seven days from February 3, 2026. No costs were awarded, and urgent certified copies were permitted.

Practically, this order compels immediate action in the stalled recruitment, enabling shortlisted candidates to verify their positions and reserved candidates to ensure quota compliance. It prevents the physical tests from proceeding on an opaque basis, potentially averting future challenges. Implications extend beyond this case: recruitment bodies in similar multi-stage processes, especially for uniformed services, may now face heightened scrutiny to disclose interim results, aligning with evolving judicial norms on public employment. For instance, other state police or civil service recruitments with physical components could adopt preemptive disclosures to avoid litigation.

Broader effects include bolstering candidate trust, reducing arbitrary exclusions, and reinforcing Article 14 's application to service matters. Future cases might cite this for mandating transparency where initial stages decisively filter participants, potentially standardizing practices across India. However, it cautions against over-disclosure in interview-centric selections, preserving Harkirat 's legacy. Overall, the decision advances accountable governance, ensuring that merit, not mystery, drives public hiring.

In the context of rising recruitment litigations post-COVID backlogs, this ruling could streamline processes by embedding verification early, benefiting both authorities and aspirants. As West Bengal Police complies, it may set a model for nationwide reforms, underscoring the judiciary's watchdog role in equitable opportunity distribution.