IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi M.A.T. 2115 of 2025 The West Bengal Central School Service Commission & Ors.

vs.

Somnath Pramanik & Ors.

With CAN 1 of 2025 For the WBCSSC : Mr. Kalyan Bandopahdyay, Sr. Adv., Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya Ms. Pramiti Bandopadhyay Mr. Arka Kumar Nag Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh For the Respondent/

Writ petitioner : Mr. Pratik Dhar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Samir Halder Mr. Snehal Sinha For the State : Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Sr. S.C.

Mr. Sandip Das Gupta Ms. Mahima Cholera Mr. Nikhil Ojha Heard & Judgment on : December 16, 2025 Debangsu Basak, J.:-

1. Appeal is at the behest of the West Bengal Central School Service Commission and its functionaries.

2. Appeal is directed against the impugnedjudgment and impugned order dated November 27, 2025 passed in W.P.A. 26937 of 2025.

3. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants submits that learned Single Judge erred in not directing the individual candidates to avail of the categorization as directed by the appellant no. 1. Refusal to do so will not permit the appellants to place individual candidates in the correct categories.

4. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants draws the attention of the Court to the advertisement dated May 30, 2025 in relation to the second SLST, 2025. He submits that the last date of submission of the application was till July 21, 2025. Prior to the expiry of the time for submission of application, authorities issued the first addendum dated June 24, 2025 prescribing a requirement of resubmission of category details by the applicants. Thereafter, the second addendum was issued on July 30, 2025 requiring the candidates to categorize their candidatures. He draws the attention of the Court to the third and fourth addendums in this regard also. He contends that none of the writ petitioners in the present matter categorized their candidatures although they participated in the selection process as SC/ST/PH category.

5. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants draws the attention of the Court to the application filed by the individual candidates. He draws the attention of the Court to the column of application fee in the application form. He submits that the application fee was classified as SC/ST/PH with an application fee of Rs.200/-. Therefore, going by the contents of such an application, it cannot be said with certainty that the individual candidate fell into which category of the three categories prescribed therein.

6. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants submits that one of the individual candidates issued a letter asking for permission to submit the categorization subsequent to the closure of the date prescribed by the fourth addendum.

7. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellants submits that no opportunity to file an affidavit controverting the material allegations made in the writ petition to the appellants was granted by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, on such score, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained.

8. Learned senior advocate appearing for the writ petitioners submits that the application filed by his clients was in accordance with the formatof the application which the authorities prescribed. He submits that there was no requirement for the four addenda to be issued. He draws the attention of the Court to the contents of the four addenda. He submits that one of the addenda refers to an order of the Supreme Court dated July 28, 2025. He submits that the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated July 28, 2025 relates OBC classifications and categorization. Therefore, it can at best govern the OBC candidates. The writ petitioners do not fall within such category. They cannot be penalized with the rejection of their candidatures. They cannot be classified as General category candidates also.

9. Learned senior advocate appearing for the writ peti