Midway Trap: Calcutta HC Slaps Down Surprise Interview Cut-Offs, Orders Job for Overlooked Candidate

In a decisive ruling that reinforces fairness in public recruitment, the Calcutta High Court's Division Bench of Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Prasenjit Biswas has directed the West Bengal Public Service Commission (PSC) to recommend Nirmal Chandra Biswas —a Scheduled Caste candidate—for the post of Krishi Prayukti Sahayak . Biswas edged out the last selected candidate with 81.75 aggregate marks against 81.50 but was sidelined due to a post-interview qualifying mark hurdle that wasn't in the original rules.

The judgment, delivered on February 17, 2026 , in WPST 137 of 2025 (Nirmal Chandra Biswas vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) , builds on prior litigation, ensuring no one is left behind when selection flaws are exposed.

The Recruitment Rollercoaster: From Ad to Disqualification

The saga began with a PSC advertisement for Krishi Prayukti Sahayak posts, outlining a written exam of 150 marks (Part I: 120, Part II: 30) and a 15-mark interview. Qualifying marks were specified only for Part II—no mention of interview cut-offs.

Candidates like Biswas (Part I: 69.75, Part II: 9, Interview: 3; total 81.75) and earlier successful challenger Pritam Ghosal (UR category, 97.25 total) cleared the written stages. Ghosal ranked above his category's last selected candidate (95.20 marks). But midway, after interviews concluded, PSC sprung a qualifying threshold: 7 marks for UR (Ghosal fell short) and 5 for SC (Biswas too).

Ghosal's OA 940/2019 triumphed at the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (order dated 04.12.2020), quashing the cut-off as "arbitrary and illegal." The High Court affirmed this in WPST 9/2021 on 19.06.2023, extending compliance timelines.

Biswas had filed OA 741/2019 earlier than Ghosal's but faced delays: Tribunal required a two-member bench, unavailable until its non-functionality from September 2025. Invoking Supreme Court precedent in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2020) 6 SCC 1, Biswas approached the writ court.

Petitioner's Plea vs. PSC's Defense: A Clash Over Fair Play

Biswas argued for parity: Same recruitment, same illegality struck down for Ghosal—why not him? He wasn't a "fence-sitter"; his claim predated Ghosal's victory, with no delay or acquiescence.

PSC countered by justifying the interview cut-off, claiming candidates knew the parameters. They labeled Biswas a latecomer unworthy of Ghosal's relief, despite his superior aggregate.

The State echoed PSC, alleging laches despite Biswas's proactive 2019 filing.

Decoding Equality: SC Precedents Seal the Deal

The Bench wasted no time rehashing settled law. Ghosal's Tribunal order— "fixing of cut off marks for the interview subsequent to the part-I and part-II examination is arbitrary and illegal" —stood affirmed. No relitigation allowed.

Drawing from the Supreme Court's landmark in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347, the judges emphasized: Courts expect authorities to extend illegality rulings to all similarly placed candidates to avert Article 14 discrimination. Exceptions like laches or acquiescence apply to "fence-sitters" who wait for others' wins—but not Biswas, whose OA predated Ghosal's.

Key para 22 from Arvind Kumar Srivastava , quoted extensively: "The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike... merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently."

No such vices here: Biswas diligently pursued relief amid Tribunal hurdles.

Punchy Pronouncements from the Bench

  • On prior precedent : "We find no scope for such argument in the present case since the same issue with respect to the self-same recruitment process was already decided in the case of Pritam Ghosal."

  • Rejecting discrimination : "Normally when a decision is rendered by a Court declaring illegality in a selection process, it is expected that the authorities would extend the benefit of such declaration to all candidates. This course of action is warranted to avoid discrimination."

  • No laches bar : "There is no issue of any delay and latches coming in the way of grant of benefits to the petitioner... the present writ petitioner approached the Tribunal for the self-same relief as Pritam Ghosal by filing an OA prior to filing of OA by Pritam Ghosal."

  • Parity imperative : "In view of above consideration, there is no basis whatsoever to deny the petitioner parity with Pritam Ghosal."

Victory Lap: Appointment Timeline Set, Broader Ripples Ahead

The writ succeeded. PSC must recommend Biswas to the Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, within eight weeks of order presentation. The Department follows with appointment in another eight weeks .

This isn't just one job restored—it's a blueprint for recruiters. Post-advertisement rule tweaks risk quashing, and victories for one demand parity for peers, barring proven delay. As other sources note, it echoes warnings against "midway" changes, promoting transparent processes to shield merit from bureaucratic surprises.

Service aspirants, take note: Vigilance pays, and courts guard the gate.