JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Four writ petitions have been heard analogously as they emanate from the same order dated March 29, 2022 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in OA 11 of 2021, OA 105 of 2021 and OA 150 of 2021.

2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has refused to set aside the recruitment process conducted by the West Bengal Public Service Commission for the post of Sub-Inspector in the Subordinate Food and Supply Service, Grade III, under Food and Supplies Department, Government of West Bengal, 2018. The Tribunal has however held that, persons belonging to a reserved category who took the benefit of age relaxation could not be placed in the unreserved category. The Tribunal has directed the preparation of fresh panels for the unreserved and the reserved categories in such context.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the four writ petitions can be categorized as Public Service Commission, State, successful candidates who have been given appointment, successful candidates who are yet to be given the appointment, and unsuccessful candidates.

4. Writ petition at the behest of the Public Service Commission has been registered as WPST 48 of 2022 while those of the unsuccessful candidates have been registered as WPST 34 of 2022, WPST 35 of 2022, and WPST 42 of 2022.

Contentions of unsuccessful candidates

5. It has been contended on behalf of the unsuccessful candidates that, once reserved category candidates have taken the benefit of age relaxation given to such category of candidates, they cannot be treated as same as unreserved category candidates. It has been contended that, unreserved category candidates did not obtain any benefit of age relaxation. Reserved category candidates have been granted age relaxation and those candidates belonging to the reserved category who had taken the age relaxation can no longer be treated at par with the unreserved category candidates.

6. It has been contended on behalf of the unsuccessful candidates that, question No. 87 was wrong and that all 4 options to such answer were wrong. The written examination process had provided for negative marking of 0.33 marks in case of a wrong answer. Question No. 87 had therefore affected the unsuccessful candidates along with others. It has also been contended that question No. 36 was also wrong. Therefore, according to the unsuccessful candidates, they are entitled to receive full marks in respect of question No. 36 and 87 in the written examination as they had attempted those answers. The unsuccessful candidates had not been provided with the key answers prior to the publication of the result of the written examination and no process for obtaining feedbacks from the candidates was exercised.

7. It has been contended on behalf of the unsuccessful candidates that, the criteria for tiebreak in cases where equal aggregate marks were obtained by the candidates were not disclosed prior to the commencement of the selection process or even before the holding of the written examination or the interview. The Public Service Commission had published a note with regard to the result dated March 4, 2021. Therefore, the prescription of tiebreak had been introduced subsequent to the Written and the Personality Test.

8. The unsuccessful candidates have questioned the maintainability of the writ petition at the behest of the Public Service Commission. It has been contended on their behalf that, being a recommending body, Public Service Commission has no right to file a writ peti