22.04.2025 CALCUTTA HIGH COURT (D/L 04) IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI (SKB)

WPST 2 of 2025 Tanmoy Bhattacharya Versus The State of West Bengal and others Mr. Sayan De, Ms. Esha Acharya … for the petitioner.

Ms. Bedashruti Bose, Ms. Rima Sarkar … for the State.

Mr. Ekramul Bari, Sk. Imtiaj Uddin, Ms. Rinka Chakraborty … for the respondent Nos.4&5.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of his Original Application bearing No. 594 of 2024 dated 21.03.2025 by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘SAT’).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the private respondent nos.4 & 5.

3. The petitioner participated in the process of recruitment of physiotherapists. The process culminated in publication of a panel for physiotherapist Grade-III on 20.12.2019. The panel comprised of 30 persons. On the same date, the respondent West Bengal Health Recruitment Board published overall performance of all eligible candidates including those who are selected for physiotherapist Grade-III. In the list of overall performance the petitioner’s name figured at serial no.35 having a total of 74.83 marks. He thereafter made applications under the RTI Act. He sought information as to the manner in which marks were awarded under different parameters including work experience.

4. The replies to his queries under the RTI Act were supplied by the respondent authorities on several dates including the replies dated 19.11.2022 and 15.02.2023. It is apparent from perusal of the queries made by the petitioner and the response under the RTI Act that the petitioner was primarily aggrieved by the award of marks on the parameter of work experience. The petitioner had been awarded 4 marks, which, according to him, was insufficient. According to the petitioner, he ought to have been awarded 6 marks on this parameter.

5. It is apparent that the petitioner was placed at serial 35 in the overall performance. The panel of physiotherapist Grade-III was limited to 30 candidates only. This fact was known to the petitioner since 20.12.2019 when the overall performance and the panel was published.

6. Insofar as the petitioner’s grievance of being awarded lesser marks for experience, the stand of the respondents in this regard, supporting award of such marks to the petitioner was known to the petitioner since replies were given under the RTI on 01.11.2022, 19.11.2022 and 15.02.2023. The petitioner, however, choose not to approach any forum for raising his grievance in this regard and continued only to make representations to the authorities.

7. Nearly two years after the last information was supplied to the petitioner under the RTI (15.02.2023), the respondents came up with the order appointing physiotherapist, as a result of the recruitment process wherein the petitioner participated. One Prasenjit Koley, Gitasree Pahadi and Surajit Shil have been appointed and posted to the respective posts on 13.11.2024. It is only thereafter the petitioner has filed the original application assailing the appointment order dated 13.11.2024. The petitioner has primarily sought the relief in the O.A. for a direction upon the respondents to enhance the marks awarded to him in the recruitment process and on basis of enhanced marks to recast the panel afresh. The Tribunal has rejected the petitioner’s O.A. on the ground of the same being belated.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been awarded the correct marks under the parameter of work experience. If the petitioner was to be granted due marks by adding 4 marks to his awarded 74.83 marks, he would immediately be placed above two candidates, namely, Prosenjit Koley and Gitasree Pahari since both of these candidates had secured 76.58 and 76.41 marks. If 4 marks were to be added to the petitioner’s marks 74.83, the same would come to 78.83 and, therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to the appointment in p