02/02 In the High Court at Calcutta

2026 Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side A-26/24 266312 NANDY WPA 2224 of 2025 (DISMISSED)

MD. ABDUR ROUF Vs.

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

Mr. Dinesh Pani, Advocate Ms. Sulagna Sen, Advocate …...for the Petitioners Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, ld. Sr.S.C Ms. Tapati Samanta, Advocate ……for the State

1. The petitioner had applied for the post of District Librarian under the local Library Authority, Purba Burdwan. The advertisement was made on 31.05.2023. There are three rounds of qualification for ultimate selection. The first round is a written examination, the second is an examination for computer to check the basic knowledge of the aspirant and the third is the interview process.

2. The petitioner had succeeded in the first round and had appeared for the second round, in which he had procured 2 marks and been called for the third round, which is the interview. However, after the interview round, the petitioner was unsuccessful and has filed this writ-petition thereafter challenging the interview process as well as the fact that he was not recommended in the first or the second merit list published by the authorities.

3. The petitioner had made an application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, on the basis whereof, on 21.02.2025, the petitioner was informed that his score in the Computer Test Examination (second round) was 2 out of 10. Thus, the petitioner was not recommended either in the first or the second merit list.

4. Mr. Pani, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that since the petitioner was called for the interview round, it can be assumed that the petitioner had qualified in the second round. Thus, there is no justifiable reason as to why the petitioner should not be recommended in the first or the second merit list.

5. Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned senior Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent authorities, submits that pursuant to the process being undertaken, the advertisement was issued on 31.05.2023 and prior thereto was forwarded to all the concerned authorities on 02.05.2023, the cut-off for the second round had been fixed on the basis of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education pass mark which is 25 out of 100, thereby making the qualifying marks in the second round 2.5 out of 10, being 25% thereof. This was prevalent as on the date of publication of the advertisement and had been duly forwarded to all the concerned authorities under the heading of ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ (FAQ). He further submits that no vested right can be created in favour of any candidate merely because he has been called for interview, for appointment.

6. He has also relied upon three decisions, two of this Hon’ble Court rendered in MAT 2347 of 2023 (Nabanita Jana Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), MAT 1886 of 2025 (Animesh Bandyopadhyay Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) and the other one is of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 1993 Supp (2) SCC 600 (Jai Singh Dalal & Ors. Vs.

State of Haryana & Anr.).

7. From the decisions of Nabanita Jana and Animesh Bandopadhyay (supra), it has been clearly held that in these matters the Selection Committee would have the discretion to evolve a criteria of computer knowledge. This is a Panel/committee of experts and having deliberated and decided on an issue pertaining to the cut-off marks, prior to the advertisement, it would not be proper for the Courts to interfere.

8. In this case as well, the advertisement was made on

31.05.2023. The issue regarding the cut-off marks had already been decided by the expert committee and the question of scaling down the eligibility criteria fixed by the expert committee/panel, merely because the petitioner had been called for the third round and was not recommended thereafter, cannot be a ground to disrupt the entire process.

9. The petitioner’s argument that he had been called for the third round, which necessarily implies that he had obtained the cut-off mark, is n