SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Cal) 847

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Soumen Sen, Apurba Sinha Ray, JJ.
Jakir Hossain Mondal & Ors. – Petitioners 
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents 
MAT 1113 of 2025, MAT 1114 of 2025, MAT 1135 of 2025, MAT 1162 of 2025, CAN 1 of 2025
Decided On : 10-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Soumya Majumder, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vishak Bhattacharya, Adv., Ms. Ruchira Chatterjee, Adv., Ms. Biyanka Bhattacharya, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Pratik Dhar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee, Adv., Ms. Madhurima Sarkar, Adv.

The court upheld the Commission’s authority to conduct a second written examination to rectify previous evaluation errors, affirming the necessity for fair recruitment practices.

Headnote:(A) West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Recruitment (Selection and Recommendation of Persons for Appointment and Transfer to the post of Teacher & Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2010 - Recruitment process for posts of Group-D - Petitioners challenged the notices issued by the Commission directing written tests for additional candidates. The court upheld the Commission's decision to conduct a fresh examination to rectify earlier evaluation errors, stating that it was within the Commission's authority to do so. (Paras 107, 137)

(B) Administrative Errors - The principle that a mistake by the administration cannot warrant the continuation of past errors, allowing for corrective measures to be taken to ensure fairness in recruitment processes. (Paras 132, 138)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners contested notices for fresh written tests issued by the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission for candidates who had been erroneously excluded from prior evaluations due to administrative errors. (Paras 1, 20)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Commission acted within its powers to ensure fairness and rectify prior mistakes in the recruitment process. (Paras 136, 140)

Issues: Whether the Commission had the authority to issue notices for a second written test after a previous evaluation process was completed and whether such action conflicted with prior judicial orders. (Paras 107, 108)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the Commission, when faced with mistakes in the evaluation process that excluded eligible candidates, had the authority to conduct additional examinations to rectify those errors and ensure equitable treatment of all candidates. (Paras 136, 138)

Result: Appeals dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Table of Content
1. introduction of grievances against wbmsc judgment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. detailing the history of recruitment processes. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. commission's actions concerning recruitment legality. (Para 7 , 8)
4. supreme court's rulings affecting recruitment process dynamics. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. commission's failure to meet recruitment deadlines. (Para 12 , 13)
6. arguments regarding eligibility and procedural fairness. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
7. challenge to commission's decision to conduct re-exams. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
8. filing of subsequent writ petitions. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
9. intervenors' participation in the ongoing litigation. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
10. legal reasoning against new written exams conducted. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
11. arguments presented regarding the fairness of revised testing. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
12. commission's response to arguments against re-examination. (Para 52 , 53 , 54)
13. fundamental issues regarding the recruitment process. (Para 108 , 111)
14. judgment’s rationale surrounding the selection process. (Para 112 , 113 , 114)
15. clarification on the observations and binding elements of judgments. (Para 117 , 118 , 120)

JUDGMENT :

Soumen Sen, J.

1. The appellants are aggrieved by the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 16th July, 2025 whereby the challenge to the notices dated 5th August, 2024 and 9th August, 2024 issued by the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission (in short 'WBMSC') had failed. The writ petitions were dismissed. Those writ petitions were heard along with the petitions filed by the interveners in this proceeding. The writ petitions filed by the interveners being WPA No.845 of 2025 and WPA No.1436 of 2025 before the learned Single Judge were allowed.

2. All the writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by the common judgment. In the writ petitions filed by the interveners the grievance was that the WBMSC was delaying the process in completing the recruitment process.

3. Before we advert to the submissions made on behalf of the WBMSC, we briefly narrate the facts which are as follows:

4. In or about 27th March, 2010, an advertisement was issued by the WBMSC in respect of the examination of 1st SLST (NT) Group-D. On 12th November, 2010, the Government of West Bengal Minority Affairs and Madrasah Education Department prepared and published a Rule, namely, West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Recruitment (Selection and Recommendation of Persons for Appointment and Transfer to the post of Teacher & Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2010 (hereby referred to as 'Recruitment Rules, 2010'). The recruitment process for the 1st SLST was to be held in three sessions and 1,43,303 candidates participated in the said examination. On 29th May, 2011, the written examination was held for 26,445 candidates after they were successful in the preliminary screening examination. During the pendency of the said selection process, the writ petition being WP 20650(W) of 2013 was filed on 12th March, 2014 challenging some of the sections of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008. On 12th March, 2014, the learned Single Judge by a judgment declared Sections 8 , 10, 11 and 12 of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008 as ultra vires Article 30 of the Constitution of India as a result whereof the Commission was unable to proceed with the said recruitment process of Group-D posts of 1st SLST (NT), 2010. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the Commission being MAT 473 of 2014 and AST 130 of 2014. The Hon'ble Division Bench by the judgment and order dated 9th December, 2015 declared the entire Act of 2008 as unconstitutional. A Special Leave Petition was filed on 14th March, 2016 by a wait listed candidate of 5th SLST, 2011(AT) being SLP(C) No.6661 of 2016 in which an interim order was passed on 14th March, 2016 whereby the impugned final judgment and order was stayed. Thereafter, on 17th November, 2017 the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted the West B

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top