Back
Dismisses SLST Aspirants' Plea for OBC-A Reservation After Category Struck Down
Justice Aniruddha Roy of the on , dismissed two writ petitions filed by candidates in the Second State Level Selection Test (SLST) 2025, ruling that they could not claim after the High Court had struck down the relevant OBC classifications. The Court held that the petitioners—Mehebuba Khatun and Sabina Khatun, along with others—had no to participate in the recruitment as OBC-A candidates, and that the notifications issued by the requiring re-declaration of sub-category were valid.
Background: A Tangled Web of Litigation
The case arises from a long-running legal saga over the SLST 2016 recruitment process. A Division Bench of the , in (), struck down certificates for 77 OBC classes, including the "Mondal" category to which the petitioners belonged. Subsequently, the in () upheld the cancellation of the entire SLST 2016 selection process, terminating even ' services.
Despite this, the petitioners—who had been among the in SLST 2016—applied for SLST 2025 as OBC-A candidates. After qualifying in the written examination and featuring in the Final Merit Panel published on , they were confronted with notifications from the () demanding that OBC candidates provide their sub-category details or be treated as Unreserved (General). The petitioners challenged these notifications, arguing they had a protected right to retain their reserved status from the earlier selection.
Arguments and Counterarguments
Petitioners’ Stand
argued that the Division Bench’s judgment in
Amal Chandra Das
itself protected
who had already succeeded in a selection process. He cited the specific direction that
"the services of citizens from the 77 classes… who have already availed the benefit of reservation or have succeeded in any selection process… shall not be affected."
He further relied on the
’s order in
(), which stated that should not be adversely affected by the new 2025 Rules. Mr. Dhar contended that requiring the petitioners to re-declare their category after the merit list was published amounted to changing the "" mid-process, which is impermissible under
.
Respondents’ Case
, appearing for the , countered that the
Amal Chandra Das
judgment had been delivered a year before the SLST 2025 process began, and its after the State withdrew its Special Leave Petition meant the petitioners had no subsisting OBC-A status. She emphasised that the had cancelled the entire SLST 2016 selection, and the allowing to continue in service was an ad hoc measure creating no . , Standing Counsel for the , adopted these submissions and added that the of the State—which underpinned the disputed notifications—had not been challenged and could not be questioned by persons lacking a .
Key Legal Analysis
Justice Roy began by examining whether the petitioners had a valid right to maintain the writ petition under . He noted that the Amal Chandra Das judgment, which struck down the OBC-A category, attained on , when the State withdrew its SLP. Since the SLST 2025 notification was issued on —after the Division Bench judgment—the petitioners could not claim to have applied under a valid reserved category.
The Court further held that the ’s decision in Baishakhi Bhattacharyya had terminated the entire SLST 2016 panel, including . Any continued service was merely an without creating any right or . Therefore, the protection claimed by the petitioners from the earlier selection process had evaporated.
Key Observations from the Judgment
“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.”
“Since entire panel of SLST 2016 was terminated, the petitioners cannot claim any right thereunder.”
“In the facts of this case admittedly, no Appointment Letter has been issued in favour of the petitioner.”
“The State has not changed the rule of the game but only has adopted the of the State.”
The Court distinguished Tej Prakash Pathak on the ground that the State had not altered any selection criteria mid-stream; it had merely applied its existing , which the implemented through the impugned notifications.
Decision and Implications
Justice Aniruddha Roy dismissed both writ petitions with no order as to costs, holding that they were "" and not . The ruling underscores that candidates participating in a fresh recruitment process cannot rely on reserved-category rights that have been judicially struck down, even if they were previously selected under that category in a now-cancelled process. The decision also reaffirms that aspirants acquire no until an appointment letter is issued, and that policy decisions on reservation are not open to challenge by individuals lacking a subsisting legal entitlement.
