IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:-

The Hon’ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad

And

The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

W.P.S.T. 147 of 2025

Suman Chattopadhyay

Vs.

The State of West Bengal and Others

For the Petitioner : Mr. Gangadhar Das,

Mr. Tanmay Chattopadhyay.

For the State : Mr. Swapan Banerjee,

Ms. Sumita Shaw,

Mr. Suman Chatterjee.

Judgment on : December 09, 2025

Madhuresh Prasad, J.:

1. Heard the learned advocate for the writ petitioner and the learned advocate

representing the State respondents.

2. Tribunal’) rejected the

OThrieg inWael sAtp pBleicnagtaiol nA (dOm.Ai.n4i7st4r aotfi v2e0 2T0r)i fbiulenda bl y( itnh es whorirtt p‘etitioner.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the original application arises out of a process

of recruitment for the post of Librarian under the Health and Family Welfare

Department, Government of West Bengal.

4. An advertisement was issued on 12.09.2019. It is

the petitioner’s case that the

petitioner was a candidate entitled to benefit of reservation for the category Economically Weaker Section EWS’). On 09.07.2019 the State G“overnment had issued an o”ff ic(ein msehmorotr a‘ndum under the signature of the Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal regarding reservation for EWS in direct recruitment in Civil Post and Services and admission in educational institutions in the State of West Bengal. Despite such office memorandum preceding the issuance of advertisement by about two months, the advertisement dated 12.09.2019 did not contemplate reservation for EWS.

5. The learned advocate for the writ petitioner submits that it was specific case of the writ petitioner before the Tribunal that the petitioner applied in response to the advertisement and also raised an objection regarding there being no provision of reservation for the EWS. Despite such objection, the authorities proceeded with the recruitment process under the advertisement dated

12.09.2019 without redressing the petitioner’s grievance.

6. The petitioner, in these circumstances, filed the Original Application being O.A.474 of 2020 before the Tribunal seeking a relief in the following terms:

“(a) An order setting aside the selection process completed vide Advertisement no. R/Lid.-20/72(1)/2019 dated 12.09.2019 and quashing the appointment of the respondent nos. (vi) to (xxv) which made in violation of the Office Memorandum no. 325-PAR(AR)/3P-1/2019 dated 09.07.2019 by not keeping 10% reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWSs) in civil posts and services in the Govt. of West Bengal.”

7. The Tribunal has rejected the original application filed by the writ petitioner.

Considering the application to be not maintainable for the reason that the same was filed much after declaration of result and selection of candidates. The factual position is not in dispute that the petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal only after he emerged unsuccessful in the recruitment process. The Tribunal has also taken into consideration the facts brought to its notice by the State that the recruitment process was initiated much prior to issuance of the office memorandum. The office memorandum dated 9^th July, 2019, upon which the petitioner was placing reliance, contemplated taking of several steps such as fixing of roster point and issuance of guidelines to enable implementation of the policy. The Tribunal also took into consideration the fact that the policy for EWS reservation was implemented later by the Government notification dated

18.05.2023.

8. The learned advocate for the writ petitioner submits that the petition to reservation was arising out of a constitutional right of the writ petitioenr’esr .c lTaihme Tribunal did not consider this aspect of the matter. Referring to a decision of the Apex Court, in the case of Pradeep Kumar Rai and Others vs. Dinesh Kumar Pandey and Others, reported in (2015) 11 SCC 493, considered by a co-ordinate Bench of this court in th