Ct. No.4 S/L 09.01.2026

(Naba) 01

W.P.S.T. 7 of 2026

Gairik Debnath & Ors.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Mr. Rishabh Ahmad Khan

...for the Petitioners

Mr. Pranab Kumar Dutta, ld. G.P.,

Mr. Rajat Dutta

...for the State

1. Certified copy of the order dated 08.01.2026

passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short) in O.A. No.5 of

2026, filed by the petitioners is taken on record.

2. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners and

the learned advocate for the respondents.

3. The petitioners applied pursuant to an

advertisement for appointment of pharmacist published on 07.08.2025. One of the qualifications as per the advertisement was that candidate must be “Registered as ‘A’ category Pharmacist under West Bengal Pharmacy Council”. The petitioners’ candidature was rejected on the ground that they did not possess the requisite qualification of being registered on the relevant date (03.09.2025), i.e. the last date for

submission of applications.

4. The learned advocate for the petitioners made a

mentioning this morning that since the West

Bengal Administrative Tribunal is non-functional, their applications before the Tribunal cannot be considered. It was submitted that though the petitioners have the requisite qualifications as on the last date for submission of application forms, their candidature has been rejected and Computer Based Test (CBT) is notified to be held on

14.01.2026.

5. In the circumstances, we have notified this matter to be taken up today as an urgent matter.

6. The learned advocate for the writ petitioner has drawn attention of the Court towards the certificates issued by the West Bengal Pharmacy Council in favour of the writ petitioners to submit that petitioners were registered with the West Bengal Pharmacy Council (for short “Council”). He submits that all the writ petitioners possess certificates in support of their claim of being registered. By way of example, the learned counsel relied upon one such certificate issued in favour of one of the candidates, namely Gairak Debnath.

7. From perusal of the same, it is apparent that the certificate dated 22.02.2021 being produced in support of the petitioners’ candidature is a “Certificate of Restoration” showing renewal of his registration under Section 34 of the Pharmacy Act. From perusal of the certificate, it is apparent that the petitioner was registered under the Pharmacy Act, but his name was removed under sub-Section (2) of Section 34 of the Act. Subsequently, when he has fulfilled the conditions referred to in the proviso to that sub-Section, his name was accordingly restored in the Register. The other candidates also have annexed similar “Certificate of Restoration”. It is apparent from perusal of the certificate that the same was not valid at the relevant time , and till the last date for submission of application forms, as per the advertisement. We made a specific query from the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner whether any writ petitioner had a certificate which was valid on 03.09.2025; being the last date for submission of application form. He fairly submits that all the writ petitioners are similarly situated.

8. He, however, submits that the requirement under the advertisement was of being registered. The petitioners were registered with the Counsel and since they were registered, they were required to be considered as an eligible candidate, irrespective of the fact whether the certificate had been renewed.

9. He submits that the advertisement did not contemplate submission of renewed certificate. He further submits that the authorities have given a window for submission of documents under a notification issued by the recruiting authority on

09.12.2025. Despite such opportunity being available, the petitioners were not allowed to submit their renewed certificates.

10. We have considered the submissions.

11. We find that the advertisement requires the candidate to be “registered”. The Certificates of Restoratio