The has formally directed the and the to file their affidavits in response to a petition filed by candidates seeking to transition their application status from Other Backward Classes (OBC) to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category. The legal challenge, initiated by Mohabul Islam and other aspirants, arises from a complex shift in state reservation policies that occurred while the recruitment process for 13,421 Assistant Teacher positions was still ongoing. Justice Arjun Ray Mukherjee, presiding over the matter, has underscored the need for a formal record of the state's position before determining whether the Board is legally obligated to accommodate the candidates' requests for category modification.
The dispute hinges on a series of administrative actions taken by the state government following legal developments regarding the classification of various OBC groups. In , the issued a notification effectively withdrawing previous criteria for OBC classification and releasing a new list of 66 classes eligible for 7% reservation. In the wake of these changes, the WBBPE issued a notification on , providing a window until , for applicants who had previously identified as OBC-A or OBC-B to update their credentials. The petitioners, who subsequently secured EWS certificates based on their gross annual income, contend that they have a right to apply this new status to their pending applications. They argue that because they are no longer categorized under the previous OBC listings, it is incumbent upon the Board to permit the EWS designation.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioners emphasized that the Board's current stance, which limits modification options to specific categories, unfairly marginalizes candidates whose eligibility status has been fundamentally altered by state policy decisions. The petitioners asserted that the Board has a clear obligation to adapt to the new legal realities defined by the government’s 2026 notifications. On the other hand, the West Bengal Board of Primary Education maintained that its actions were strictly governed by policy directives issued by the state. Representing the Board, senior counsel argued that the , notification was intended to prevent prejudice to candidates under the existing framework, but that allowing a broad transition to EWS status at this advanced stage of the recruitment process would effectively grant the petitioners the final relief they seek through the itself.
Justice Mukherjee noted that the core of the conflict requires a deeper examination of the reciprocal rights and duties of both the candidates and the selection board during a transitional period of policy implementation. The court observed that the legal challenges posed by the petition could not be resolved without a structured exchange of arguments in the form of written affidavits. As the court stated, “The issues involved in this are whether the petitioners have a right, in view of the change in circumstances during the pendency of the selection process to seek a direction upon the said Board to treat them as EWS category candidates instead of candidates, and whether the Board has a corresponding duty to allow such prayer of the petitioners.”
The judicial intervention comes after a period of intense volatility regarding teacher recruitment, complicated by previous litigation involving the status of OBC notifications. Earlier in , the High Court had stayed several state notifications concerning OBC classifications, an order that was later stayed by the . The legal landscape shifted further when the eventually dismissed the state’s as withdrawn, following the state's decision to issue new notifications in . This history has left many candidates in a state of uncertainty, with their original application categories potentially impacted by the evolving legislative and judicial framework.
For the participants in this recruitment drive, the current order signifies a period of waiting, as the court has mandated that all further steps in the selection process must await the outcome of the . The court has granted the state and the Board a period of three weeks following the conclusion of the Puja Vacation to file their respective . Furthermore, the petitioners have been granted one additional week to submit their replies to these filings.
The court has also clarified that other interested candidates may seek to intervene in the proceedings. During the hearing, counsel , representing a group of potential intervenors, was granted liberty to file an application for formal inclusion as . By setting the matter for a future date before the Regular Bench, the court has ensured that the complex interplay between government reservation policy and the administrative requirements of the teacher recruitment exam will be addressed with full transparency and procedural rigor.
As it stands, the notification of , remains the primary point of contention, particularly the clause stating that candidates who fail to modify their categories within the designated window would be automatically treated as unreserved. The court’s eventual ruling on the maintainability of the EWS update request will likely set a significant precedent for how the state handles reservation adjustments for public employment in instances where applicant eligibility criteria are modified by the government mid-process. Until the next hearing, the recruitment board is effectively under a mandate to ensure that no irrevocable steps are taken that could undermine the rights of the petitioners pending a final judicial determination. The resolution of this matter will be critical for thousands of aspirants whose prospects hinge on the recognition of their revised socioeconomic status under the new state framework.
teacher recruitment - reservation status
