The main legal point established in the judgment is that having knowledge of a flaw in the notice inviting applications and participating in the process without raising demur does not waive the right to challenge the notice, especially when it pertains to a Fundamental Right such as reservation in public employment.

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. An advertisement dated January 1, 2017 was issued inviting online applications for recruitment to Group-D posts in various offices of the State Government. It would appear from such notice that 6,000 vacancies were sought to be filled up in the manner as follows:

While E.C. in the above cage denotes "Exempted Category", ESM denotes "Ex-serviceman".

2. Being in search of public employment, the six petitioners before us submitted their applications online and offered their candidature for consideration. Incidentally, the first petitioner belongs to OBC (E.C.) and is also a person with disability, the second and the sixth petitioners belong to OBC-A, the third petitioner belongs to OBC-B, and the fourth and the fifth petitioners are Schedule Caste candidates.

3. The online applications submitted by the petitioners were found to be in order and they were issued admit cards calling upon them to participate in a written examination for which 85 marks were earmarked. After having participated in the written examination, conducted on May 14, 2017, the first petitioner submitted a representation dated June 7, 2017 before the Chairman, West Bengal Group 'D' Recruitment Board (hereafter 'the Board') complaining that the reservation policy had not been duly adhered to resulting in there being real likelihood of the reserved categories losing out on appointment. The main contention of the first petitioner was that vacancies which should have been earmarked for OBC-A (E.C.), OBC-B (E.C.), OBC-A, OBC-B and PWD (UR) had not been appropriately earmarked and that such of the vacancies, which ought to be filled up by reserved candidates, had been thrown open for being filled up by un-reserved candidates. The Chairman of the Board did not respond, resulting in the first petitioner along with the others presenting an application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (hereafter 'the tribunal') on August 3, 2017. In such application, the petitioners, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:

"(a) Order directing the respondents to forthwith Review and Recast the vacancy position declared in respect of respective categories in accordance with Reservation Policy, Statutory Acts and Rules framed in maintaining reservation and in accordance with Model 100 Point Roster as framed in the matter of selection and offering employment in the Recruitment process, 2017 as initiated for the post of Group 'D' in various offices under West Bengal Government;

(b) Direct the Respondent to declare due vacancies for the respective categories in respect of Recruitment process, 2017 for the post of Group-'D' staffs under the State of West Bengal in accordance with the Reservation Policy, statutory Rules framed in this regard and as per Model 100 Point Roster framed in this regard;"

In paragraph 6 (19) of the application, the petitioners specifically pleaded that the result of the written examination had not been published but the same was in process.

4. The original application of the petitioners came to be registered as OA 723 of 2017 and was taken up for consideration along with OA 943 of 2017 (Pranab Ray and anr. vs. State of West Bengal and ors.).

5. Learned advocate representing the State of West Bengal before the tribunal