The court upheld the validity of applying separate roster points for clear and anticipated vacancies in recruitment processes, emphasizing adherence to procedural norms to ensure fairness.

JUDGMENT :

Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.

1. Both the appeals are directed against judgments and orders dated 18th March, 2025 passed on two writ petitions being WPA 16722 of 2024 (Ivana Hossaini vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) and WPA 14779 of 2024 (Susmita Ghosh vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). Learned single judge having found that there is common issue involved in both the writ petitions decided the writ petition being WPA 16722 of 2024 by impugned judgment dated 18th March, 2025 and applying the ratio of Ivana Hossaini (supra) writ petition being WPA 14779 of 2024 was dismissed. Being aggrieved by aforesaid two judgments and orders passed in two separate writ petitions present appeals and connected applications were preferred. Only difference between these two appeals is in FMA 697 of 2025 (Ivana Hossaini vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) the appellant is OBC(A) category candidate whereas in appeal being MAT 483 of 2025 (Susmita Ghosh vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) the appellant is OBC(B) category candidate in connection with the West Bengal Judicial Service Examination, 2022 which was held for filling up the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).

2. The appeal being FMA 697 of 2025 will be decided first and the decision will govern another appeal being MAT 483 of 2025.

3. Based on requisition forwarded by the High Court at Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’) which reached the Public Service Commission, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Commission’) through the Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal an advertisement was published on 30th December 2022 for holding West Bengal Judicial Service Examination, 2022. As per said advertisement dated 30th December, 2022, 12 (twelve) vacancies were identified as clear vacancies and 17 (seventeen) vacancies were identified as anticipated vacancies. It was stated in the said advertisement out of 12(twelve) clear vacancies 8(eight) were earmarked as unreserved vacancies, one vacancy was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate, one vacancy was reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate, one vacancy was reserved for OBC(A) category candidate whereas one vacancy was reserved for OBC(B) category candidate. Likewise out of 17 (seventeen) anticipated vacancies 10 (ten) vacancies were unreserved, 2 (two) vacancies were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate, one vacancy was reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate, 2 (two) vacancies were reserved for OBC(A) category candidate, 1 (one) vacancy was reserved for OBC(B) category candidate and 1 (one) vacancy was reserved for person with disability. The procedure for holding selection process was divided into three parts namely, Preliminary Examination (MCQ Type), Final Examination (Conventional Type-Written) and Personality Test. Vide aforesaid advertisement eligible candidates were intimated to apply for participating in said West Bengal Judicial Service Examination, 2022.

4. Appellant applied under OBC(A) category and on conclusion of said selection process in the merit list appellant ranked 36th out of 54 enlisted candidates. However, appellant did not come within the zone of consideration for being appointed in the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) which triggered the connected writ petition. Precisely case of the appellant is if based on combined merit list published by Commission on 13th May,