The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 100-point roster to the selection process and the entitlement of the petitioners to compensation and costs due to the inexcusable illegality on the part of the State and its relevant department.

SANJIB BANERJEE, J.

1. The three petitions are identical and are dealt with by this common judgment and order.

2. The petitioners applied in 2001 for the post of sub-officer in the West Bengal Fire & Emergency Services. Their candidature was sponsored by the employment exchange. Their grievance over the last sixteen years or so is that they were unfairly denied employment despite being found fit for selection to the post.

3. These are review petitions and a narration of how the review came to be filed is necessary before embarking on an assessment on merits. Though the merit-list for the selection of candidates to the post was published early in 2002, the first of the petitions challenging the exclusion of the petitioners was carried to the State Administrative Tribunal in 2009 by OA of 564 of 2009. Such petition was disposed of by an order of August 19, 2009. The submission attributed to the relevant petitioners in such order was that they “would be satisfied at this stage if the entire application of the petitioner along with connected documents be referred to the Secretary of the department, Respondent no.1 for consideration according to existing Govt. Rule.” Accordingly, the petition was disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioners to refer the matter to the relevant secretary and the secretary was directed “to consider the matter if necessary, by giving personal hearing to the petitioner and to dispose of the same by recording reasoned order within 4 months on receipt of such application.”

4. Following such order, the principal secretary in the Department of Fire & Emergency Services passed an order on January 14, 2010. Such order recorded that two of the petitioners herein who were the petitioners in OA 564 of 2009 had ranked 26th and 27th in the merit-list of 36 candidates at the selection examination. The order implied that since the said two petitioners were from the general category of candidates, they could not make the cut though eight of the 35 posts for which candidates were sought remained vacant for non-availability of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes candidates. The principal secretary observed that since the two petitioners failed to qualify against the vacancies in the unreserved category, they had not been selected. He also observed that the said petitioners had no right to compel the State to de-reserve the unfilled posts and give them employment.

5. The same two petitioners who had earlier filed OA 564 of 2009 complained of the perceived arbitrary exclusion of such petitioners from selection to the relevant post by way of a further petition before the State Administrative Tribunal. Such petition, OA 120 of 2010, was disposed of without any affidavits being called for from the State or the relevant department. The order of June 30, 2011 recorded that the State did not wish to file any affidavit to the petition. As to how the tribunal perceived the relevant petitioners’ case is evident from the following observation therein:

“The issue involved in this application appears to be that of claim of the petitioner to dereserve certain vacancies meant for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates on the ground that no qualified candidate of those categories were available at the relevant time and there is provision for de-reservation of those vacancies and to accommodate candidates from the general category.”

6. The order also recorded the State’s submission that it was for the State Government to take a decision as to whether the post should be dereserved. The petition was disposed of with the observation that “the Directorate may again take steps for dereservation and the appropriate Government must take an early decision in this regard.”

7. It was such order of January 30, 2011 that was challenged by way of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The prayers in the petition and the thrust of the petition was not for the unfilled posts being filled up by dereserving them. Indeed, it