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 WPST 137 of 2025 NIRMAL CHANDRA BISWAS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Victor Chatterjee, Mr. Barnamoy Basak, Ms. Shreya Bhattacharjee.

For the State : Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Ld. AGP, Mr. Somnath Naskar.

For the P.S.C. : Ms. Shraboni Sarkar, Ms. Umme Habiba Khatun.

Judgment on : February 17, 2026.

Madhuresh Prasad, J

1. Briefly stating the facts leading to filing of this writ petition is that one Pritam Ghosal and present petitioner were unsuccessful candidates in the process of selection to the post of Krishi Prayukti Sahayak in the same selection process. Being aggrieved by introduction of qualifying marks for interview, leading to their disqualification both filed individual Original Applications before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (“Tribunal” for short). The present petitioner’s O.A was 741 of 2019, whereas Pritam Ghosal’s OA was filed thereafter and numbered as O.A 940 of 2019. It is their common case that as per advertisement the written examination comprised of total 150 marks (Part I- 120 marks and part II- 30 marks). 15 marks were allotted for interview. The advertisement did not prescribe cut off marks either for the written examination (Part I) or for the interview. Qualifying marks was prescribed only for Part II wherein the applicant secured the qualifying marks.

2. The petitioner in OA No. 940 of 2019 (Pritam Ghosal) had secured total 97.25 marks and based on such aggregate marks he was placed higher than the last selected candidate from his category (UR) who had secured 95.20 marks. However, he was not offered the appointment because the authorities in the midst of the recruitment process introduced qualifying marks in the interview (7 marks). In view of introduction of such qualifying marks, though Pritam Ghosal secured higher aggregate marks than the last selected candidate, he was deprived of recommendation for appointment since he did not secure qualifying marks in the interview. In such circumstance, when Pritam Ghosal approached the Tribunal raising a grievance regarding introduction of qualifying marks, the Tribunal by its order dated

04.12.2020 passed in OA No. 940 of 2019, held:

“…In our view when an advertisement was issued fixing cut off marks for part-II of the written examination only, it was improper and illegal to fix cut off marks in the interview subsequently. Therefore, fixing of cut off marks for the interview subsequent to the part-l and part-II examination is arbitrary and illegal and cannot be sustained and is therefore set aside and quashed. Since the applicant has secured 97.25 marks, which is higher than the last candidate, who had secured 95.20, which is evident from the intimation by the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal to the Joint Secretary, Public Service Commission, West Bengal, the applicant is entitled to reliefs as prayed for. Therefore, let there be an order directing the Public Service Commission, West Bengal and its Secretary, the respondent no. 2, to recommend the name of the applicant for the post of Krishi Prayukti Sahayak to the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of West Bengal - respondent no. 1 within eight weeks from the date of presentation of a copy of this order downloaded from the internet/website. After his name is recommended, the respondent no. 1 shall appoint him within eight weeks. The application is allowed…”

3. The order of the Tribunal was assailed by the respondents before the Calcutta High Court in a writ proceeding. WPST 9 of 2021 filed by the Commission was disposed of in the following terms:

“18. As noted above, the writ petitioners did not prescribe any qualifying marks to the interview prior to the commencement of the interview. Therefore, it cannot be said that, the private respondent participated at the interview knowing full