Court ruled candidates not meeting age criteria were ineligible for recruitment, ensuring compliance with defined categories under constitutional rights.

Heard On : 01.07.2025, 09.07.2025 & 10.07.2025 Judgment On : 10.07.2025 Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.:

1. Matter is heard in presence of the learned advocates representing the petitioners, State respondents and West Bengal Central School Service Commission (for short ‘Commission’).

2. Mr. Kishore Datta, learned Advocate General appears on behalf of the State respondents and Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bandopadhyay, learned Senior Advocate represents Commission, who appears online.

3. Petitioners admittedly are over aged candidates as a result whereof they could not offer their candidatures by submitting applications in terms of recruitment notification dated 30^th May, 2025 being memo no.1092/

7016/ CSSC/ ESTT/ 2025.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Samim Ahammed, learned Advocate representing the petitioners that petitioners are not coming either under the category of tainted or untainted candidates as termed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment dated 3^rd April, 2025 passed on civil appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) no.9586 of 2024 [State of West Bengal vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) & Ors.]. It is submitted that petitioners have no grievance relating to benefit of age relaxation granted to the untainted and differently abled candidates of 1^st State Level Selection Test, 2016 for classes IX-X and XI-XII (hereinafter referred to as ‘1^st SLST, 2016’).

5. It is also contended that by initiating fresh recruitment process upon issuing aforesaid recruitment notification dated 30^th May, 2025, recruitments are to be made not only in respect of posts earmarked for 1^st SLST, 2016 but also vacancies, which subsequently arose and are clubbed together. Vacancies occurred subsequently will also be filled up. It is argued that candidates termed as untainted and differently abled may have right originates from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 3^rd April, 2025 passed in Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (supra) relating to relaxation of upper age limit but their candidatures will also be considered against subsequent vacancies which cropped up and notified in connection with selection process; which has been initiated based on recruitment notification dated 30^th May, 2025. It is submitted to the extent vacancies which were not earmarked for 1^st SLST, 2016 but untainted and differently abled candidates will get the benefit of age relaxation whereas petitioners will not get the same benefit which offends right to equality as enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution of India . On this premise petitioners have attempted to make out a case that if in connection with posts which occurred subsequently certain candidates will get benefit of age relaxation, in that event present petitioners are also entitled to get identical benefit. While advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioners reliance is placed on the order passed by this Court on 12^th November, 2024 passed on writ petition being WPA 24394 of 2024 (Sandip Chakravarti & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.).

6. Such submissions made on behalf of the petitioners are opposed by the learned advocates representing the State respondents and the Commission.

7. It is submitted that nowhere in the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Division Bench dated 22^nd April, 2024 as well as in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 3^rd April, 2025, it was directed that recruiting authority needs to restrict the ensuing selection process to the extent of vacancies which were earmarked for 1^st SLST, 2016.

8. According to the respondents, it was open to the recruiting authority to issue fresh