Writ petition rendered infructuous as original reliefs were satisfied; candidates cannot claim reevaluation without statutory provision, given the evaluation's integrity is preserved unless manifest illegality is evident.

JUDGMENT :

Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.

1. The petitioners are citizens of India residing permanently at their respective addresses as mentioned in the writ petition. Being similarly situated and similarly circumstanced, they have the locus standi to maintain the present writ application, which arises out of a common grievance relating to the 6^th State Level Selection Test (SLST), 2013 process of recruitment of Assistant Teachers in Arabic (MM) (H/PG) through the 6^th State Level Selection Test, 2013 conducted by the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission.

2. The facts in a nutshell are that an advertisement dated 30th December, 2013 was issued by the Commission declaring 121 vacancies for the aforesaid post. The petitioners, being duly qualified, applied and were issued admit cards for appearing in the written examination held on 24^th August, 2014. Each of the petitioners fulfilled the prescribed educational qualifications, having successfully completed Alim, Fazil, Kamil and M.M. examinations conducted by either the West Bengal Board of Madrasah Education or Aliah University, in various years and divisions.

3. After the written test, the petitioners were called to appear for the personality test by Memo dated 28^th November, 2017 and duly participated before the interview board of the Commission. However, upon publication of the result on 22nd June, 2018, the petitioners were declared as “not selected.” According to them, notwithstanding their fulfilling all eligibility requirements and performing satisfactorily, they were denied empanelment whereas candidates having inferior qualifications and lower marks were empanelled. At the same time, the notified vacancies for Arabic (MM) (H/PG) were not fully filled up despite the Commission having appointed candidates in other subjects.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding their written answer scripts, distribution of marks for academic qualifications, personality test scores, and the lowest marks obtained by the last empanelled and wait-listed candidates. Although the Commission disclosed certain particulars such as marks and cutoff details, the most vital information, namely, copies of their written answer scripts, was never supplied. The petitioners pursued statutory appeals under Section 19 of the RTI Act and were granted hearings on diverse dates, but the information continued to be withheld by the Appellate Authority. The letters communicating marks were received belatedly, long after filing of the writ application, which according to the petitioners, only strengthens their apprehension of irregularities and manipulation.

5. The petitioners also state that one Abdul Latiff, similarly placed and originally declared as “not selected” in the same recruitment process, succeeded before this Court in W.P. No. 11706 (W) of 2019. Pursuant to Court’s order directing reconsideration, he was ultimately appointed as Assistant Teacher in Arabic. The petitioners, having been denied similar treatment, allege discriminatory conduct on the part of the Commission. They further rely on earlier writ petitions filed by themselves where this Court directed them to approach the RTI Appellate Authority. However, despite complying with such direction, they were denied any meaningful relief.

6. By way of a supplementary affidavit, the petitioners have further brought to the notice of this Court subsequent orders r