IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHEREJEE W.P.A 16722 of 2024 with CAN 1 of 2025 CAN 2 of 2025 IVANA HOSSAINI.

VS.

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

For the petitioner :: Mr. Firdous Samim, Ms. Gopa Biswas, Ms. Payel Shome, Ms. Sampriti Saha.

.....Advocates For The High Court Mr. Kallol Basu, Administration :

Mr. Ayushman Dasgupta.

......Advocates For the State : Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Mr. Debopriya Karan …… Advocates For the PSC :

Ms. Piyali Sengupta Mr. Souvik Ghosh .....Advocates For the Applicants : Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sayak Chakraborti, Mr. Anish Kumar Mukherjee, Ms. Megha Datta, Mr. Wrickbrata Roy, Mr. Tamoghna Pramanick …..Advocates (CAN 1 of 2025 & CAN 2 of 2025)

Heard on : 19.09.2024 & 26.09.2024 Judgment on : 18th March, 2025.

Arindam Mukherjee, J.:

A. Case of the Petitioner:-

1) The petitioner participated in the West Bengal Judicial Service (Preliminary) Examination, 2022 in terms of the notice issued by West Bengal Public Service Commission (in short, „PSC‟), on 30^th December, 2022 being advertisement no.19/2022 (hereinafter referred to as the „said advertisement‟). The petitioner belongs to Other Backward Class (in short, „OBC‟) –„A‟. On being successful in the preliminary examination the petitioner was also successful in the main written examination and was called for the interview. Subsequent thereto the petitioner has been placed in the select list prepared and published by PSC on 13^th May, 2024 as serial no.36 which signifies that the petitioner got 36th Rank in the merit list.

2) The petitioner says that as per the advertisement the total vacancies are 29 in number out of which 12 are „Clear Vacancies‟ while 17 are „anticipated vacancies‟. In „Clear Vacancy‟ the unreserved seats (in short, „UR‟) are 8 Scheduled Caste (SC) 1, Scheduled Tribe (ST) 1, OBC – „A‟-1, OBC – „B‟-1. Under the „Anticipated Vacancy‟ UR-10, SC-2, ST-

1, OBC-„A‟-2, OBC-„B‟-1 and PwBD-1.

3) The petitioner says that she has been placed in the select list as serial no.36 (rank), so there are 35 persons before her in the merit list who belong to various category. The petitioner further says that as per the recommendation list prepared and published by PSC on 14th May, 2024, the PSC has bifurcated the list of the recommended candidates from the select list. Twelve recommendations have been made separately against the „Clear Vacancies‟ while seventeen recommendations have been made separately against the „Anticipated Vacancies‟, instead of preparing a continuous list on the basis of the position in the „Select list‟ by taking 18 (8+10) UR vacancies, 3 SC (1+2), 3 OBC-A (1+2), 2ST (1+1), 2 OBC-B (1+1) and 1 PwVD at a time without first filling up the „Clear Vacancies‟ and then the „Anticipated Vacancies‟. PSC according to the petitioner should have considered all the 18 (8+10) vacancies under „UR‟ Category at a go instead first recommending 8 candidates as per merit from the „select‟ list. The petitioner says that Nilu Siddique who is an OBC-„B‟ candidate and is 8^th in rank in the select list as per marks obtained has been rightly considered against the unreserved vacancy since she had obtained higher marks than „UR‟ candidates by following the ratio laid down in 2022 (11) SCC 779 [Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr. Vs. Sandeep Choudhary & Ors.] candidates like Nilu Siddique is commonly referred to as “own merit candidate”. The said Nilu Siddique, therefor, did not avail any reservation as an OBC-„B‟

candidate.

4) Similarly, Bushra Banu who is 12^th in rank and an OBC –„A‟ candidate ought to have been considered after the three unreserved candidates placed as 9^th, 10^th and 11^th in the „Select‟ list. Bushra Banu, therefor, would have filled up the 12th vacancy under „UR‟ category out of 18 vacancies and not the OBC-A vacancy under „Clear Vacancy‟ category. In the same manner Rahul Sk. placed as serial no. 33 in the „Select list‟ would have filled up the on