Com

20.01.2026 Item No.21 Court. No. 11 Avijit Mitra MAT 1886 of 2025 with IA No.CAN 1 of 2025 Animesh Bandyopadhyay - Versus -

State of West Bengal & ors.

Mr. Asim Kumar Niyogi, Mr. Vaskar Pal .…for the appellant Mr. Swapan Kumar Datta, Ld. G.P., Mr. Rajat Dutta ….for the State respondents Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Sr. Standing Counsel Ms. Tapati Samanta ….for the respondent no.4

1. The present appeal has been preferred challenging an order dated 21^st August, 2025 passed in a writ petition being WPA No.18710 of 2025. The said writ petition was preferred, inter alia, praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondents to forthwith give employment to the appellant, namely, Animesh Bandopadhyay (in short, Animesh) ‘under Exempted Land looser category as the 8 (eight) post of the declared (nine) posts are vacant under UREC’. By the impugned order, the writ petition was rejected primarily on the ground that having participated being aware of the eligibility criteria of the said selection test, Animesh could not have questioned the selection process after being unsuccessful.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details the facts are that a recruitment notice was issued vide memo dated 29^th May, 2023 inviting online applications through the district website of South 24 Parganas from the eligible candidates for filling up 52 posts of Librarian of Government Sponsored Rural Libraries under the control of Local Library Authority, South 24 Parganas by direct recruitment. In the said memo it was also indicated that the selection procedure would be ‘as per Notification No.366/MEE/Sectt. Dated -15-03-2023 of the Department of Mass Education Extension & Library Services’. Subsequent to issuance of the said memo dated 15^th March, 2023 pertaining to the selection procedure, a memo dated 2^nd May, 2023 was issued by the respondent no.6 detailing the Frequently Asked Questions (in short, FAQs) regarding recruitment of Librarians of Government Sponsored Rural Libraries followed by a further memo issued by the same respondent dated 29^th February, 2024. Animesh participated in the academic and professional examination and emerged to be successful and was, thereafter, called for computer test but subsequent thereto, he was not called for in the interview. Accordingly, Animesh submitted applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information, inter alia, as regards the number of candidates who participated in the computer test under UREC quota and the number of successful candidates. From the reply, Animesh came to learn that he was granted one mark in the computer test and a cut off mark was fixed for the said test. As Animesh was ousted from the zone of appointment, he was constrained to prefer the writ petition.

3. Mr. Niyogi, learned advocate appearing for Animesh argues that Animesh was illegally denied participation in the interview. Elaborating such argument, he submits that in the recruitment notice dated 29^th May, 2023, it was stated that the selection procedure would be as per memo dated 15^th March, 2023. In the said notification dated 15^th March, 2023, there was no stipulation of any cut off mark pertaining to computer knowledge. Such restriction was imposed by a subsequent memo dated 2^nd May, 2023 issued by the respondent no.6 and accordingly, the rules of the game qua the procedure for selection was altered in the midst of the game.

4. He contends that the selection procedure as specified in the memo dated 15^th March, 2023 issued by the order of the Hon’ble Governor could not have been altered by the memo dated 2^nd May, 2023 issued by the respondent no.6. The said memo dated 2^nd May, 2023 has no force of law and also suffers from a jurisdictional error. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed upon a judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak & ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court & ors., reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1.

5. Per contra, Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned Senior Standing Coun