Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Subir Sarkar & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 3 December, 2025
Author: Amrita Sinha
Bench: Amrita Sinha
07
03.12.2025
Ct. No.18
AGM
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 27648 of 2025
Subir Sarkar & Ors.
v.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Firdous Samim.
Ms. Gopa Biswas.
Mr. Mainak Ghosal.
Mr. Hasibur Rahaman Jamadar.
Mr. Rajosik Dutta.
... For the petitioners
Mr. Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay, Sr. SC
Mr. Sandip Dasgupta.
Ms. Mahima Cholera.
Mr. Niket Ojha.
... For the State
Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay. Sr. Adv. (VC)
Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharjee.
Ms. Pramiti Bandyopadhyay.
Mr. Arka Kumar Nag.
Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh.
... For the WBCSSC
Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya.
Mr. Bibek Dutta.
... For the WBBSE
1. Affidavit-of-service and the receipts evidencing
payment of deficit Court fees are taken on record.
2. The petitioners participated in the 2016
recruitment process for being appointed as non-
teaching staff - Clerk and Group D but were
unsuccessful in getting appointment. In view of
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court duly affirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no. 4800/2024
a/o SLP (C) No. 9586 of 2024 (State of West
2
Bengal -Versus- Baishakhi Bhattacharyya
(Chatterjee) and Others) on 3rd April, 2025, the
entire selection process was declared as null and
void.
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, directed
that the candidates who are not specifically
tainted will be eligible to participate, with
appropriate age relaxation, in the fresh selection
process to be conducted by the Commission to fill
up the vacancies.
4. The West Bengal Central School Service
Commission initiated the recruitment process for
filling up the vacancies of Clerk and Group D in
accordance with the West Bengal School Service
Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment
to the Posts of Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2025.
5. The age limit as prescribed in the said Rules for
appointment in the said posts is minimum 18
years and maximum 40 years as on the 1 st of
January of the year of the advertisement relaxable
by 5 years for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
candidates, 3 years for Other Backward Class
candidates and 8 years for Physically
Handicapped candidates.
6. The note inserted in the Rule mentions that age
relaxation in connection with fresh selection
process for recruitment of candidates for the posts
of non-teaching staff commenced pursuant to the
directions contained in the judgment and order of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.
4800/2024 dated 3rd April, 2025 read with the
order dated 17th April, 2025 in M.A. No. 709/2025
shall be given in accordance with the directions
contained therein and to be passed in connection
therewith from time to time.
7. In line with the above Rules, a notification has
been published by the Commission on 9 th October,
3
2025 for conducting the First State Level Selection
Test, 2025 for recruitment of non-teaching staff
(Clerk and Group D only) in recognized
Government aided/sponsored schools in West
Bengal.
8. The opening paragraph of the said notification
mentions about the order dated 3 rd April, 2025
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal no. 4800/2024.
9. The petitioners have crossed the maximum age as
prescribed in the Rules for participation in the
recruitment process. They are aggrieved by the
same and challenge the said Rules in the instant
writ petition.
10. According to the petitioners, age relaxation ought
to be given to all the candidates who participated
in the 2016 recruitment process irrespective of the
fact whether they were appointed or not.
11. Submission of the petitioners is that the authority
ought to have conducted the recruitment process
strictly in terms of the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court by providing age
relaxation. Not providing age relaxation to the
candidates who were not appointed in the
recruitment process conducted in the year 2016
adversely affects their rights.
12. The orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the matter of Baishakhi Bhattacharyya
(Chatterjee) (supra) and the order dated 26th
November, 2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.
46049/2025 (Bibek Paria & Ors -Versus- The
State of West Bengal & Ors.) has been placed to
impress this Court that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has directed the High Court to be mindful of
the fact that the untainted candidates in the past
selection were allowed to sit for the selection test
4
to be held afresh and their candidature cannot be
adversely affected by the application of the new
Rules.
13. It has also been brought to the notice of this
Court that in the same order the Supreme Court
recorded that the High Court shall ensure that the
list of tainted candidates is placed in the public
domain with full details so as to ensure that the
same does not happen. The parties were given
liberty to raise all issues before the High Court.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was further pleased
to record that the High Court shall examine the
matters uninfluenced by any of the observations
on merits made by the Court in the orders passed
after the decisions in Baishakhi Bhattacharyya
(Chatterjee) (supra).
15. It has been brought to the notice of this Court
that the last date for filing the forms in terms of
the advertisement was 3rd December, 2025, i.e.,
today but the same has been extended till 8 th
December, 2025.
16. The petitioners inter alia pray for interim order
directing the Commission to permit them to
participate in the ongoing recruitment process
and to direct the Commission to publish the list of
tainted candidates with complete details along
with a separate list of candidates not specifically
tainted in the 2016 recruitment process so that
the said candidates can participate in the ongoing
recruitment process in accordance with the
direction passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
17. The prayer of the petitioners is opposed by the
State and the Commission. Specific contention of
the respondents is that, the 2025 Rules, pursuant
to which recruitment is being conducted for appointment of Assistant Teachers in Classes IX-X and XI-XII was under challenge in MAT 5 1017/2025, CAN 1 of 2025 (Arunima Paul & Ors -Versus- State of West Bengal & Ors).
18. It has been submitted that whether the candidates who were not appointed in the 2016 recruitment process have a right to challenge the fresh recruitment Rules has also been decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court Arunima Paul (supra).
19. In Arunima Paul (supra) the Court was pleased to observe that the policy decision of the Government is subjected to judicial scrutiny only in exceptional circumstances where it appears that the policy or some clauses in the policy is/are manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, unreasonable or unfair or if it is found to be against any statute or constitution.
20. The Court specifically observed that prescribing age limit for a given post and also deciding the extent to which the relaxation can be given to the said age limit are essentially matters of policy. The constitutional Courts in judicial review does not function as appellate authorities to examine the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy nor they function as advisories to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate.
21. It has been pointed out that the Special Leave Petition preferred against the judgment passed in the matter of Arunima Paul (supra) stood dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 21 st July, 2025 in petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 19222/2025.
22. It has been contended that the Court in Arunima Paul (supra) clearly laid down that by mere participation a candidate does not acquire any vested right. According to the Hon'ble Division Bench only the disabled candidates and the 6 candidates not specifically tainted were allowed age relaxation and could take part in the fresh selection process.
23. Apart from the aforesaid two categories, no other category was specifically mentioned who would be entitled to such relaxation or concession in the fresh selection process to fill up the vacancies.
24. It has been argued that once the issue has been set at rest by the Court in the matter of Arunima Paul (supra), the said issue ought not to be reagitated all over again.
25. It has been submitted that the list of tainted candidates has already been published and steps are being taken to disclose the details of the said tainted candidates in terms of the order passed by the Court.
26. I have heard the submission made on behalf of both the parties. The matter is at a very preliminary stage.
27. For effective adjudication of the instant lis, the parties ought to be given an opportunity to disclose their stand by way of affidavit.
28. The respondents are directed to file their submission supported by an affidavit.
29. At this stage, keeping in mind that the date for filing the application form will be over on 8 th December, 2025, the Court is considering as to whether any interim relief can be granted to the petitioners.
30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) (supra) permitted the candidates who participated in the 2016 recruitment process and who are not specifically tainted to be eligible to participate in the fresh selection process with appropriate age relaxation.
731. It is an admitted fact that the Commission has not yet published any list of candidates not specifically tainted.
32. The Hon'ble Division Bench in the matter of Arunima Paul (supra) also took note of the fact that it is the candidates not found to be specifically tainted who may be permitted to take part in the fresh selection process with relaxation.
33. In the absence of a list disclosing the names of candidates not specifically tainted, the Commission, possibly cannot restrict participation, by age, the candidates whose names do not appear in the list of tainted candidates published by the Commission.
34. The candidates in the recruitment process of the year 2016 have been bifurcated into two distinct sets; first - the tainted ones whose candidature the Supreme Court has not approved of and has specifically kept them out of the fresh selection process and the second - the untainted candidates who have been permitted to participate in the recruitment process.
35. The Hon'ble Division Bench in Arunima Paul (supra) was also of the same opinion that the untainted candidates be permitted to participate with age relaxation.
36. None of the orders passed by either the Hon'ble Supreme Court or the High Court mention that the fresh selection process should be restricted only amongst the appointed untainted candidates or the not specifically tainted appointed candidates.
37. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that there may be many candidates who did not get appointment only because the tainted candidates have been accommodated. Had the tainted candidates not been given appointment, many of 8 the other candidates, who are not specifically tainted, could have got the job.
38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, time and again, has reminded that the High Court should be mindful of not allowing any of the tainted candidates to participate in the selection process. The same implies that, any candidate, who is not specifically tainted, shall be entitled to participate in the selection process irrespective of the fact whether the candidate got the appointment or not. In fact, the writ petitions declaring the selection process null and void were filed by candidates who did not get the job.
39. Be it recorded that in the instant case the Rule which is under challenge is the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Posts of Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2025. The said Rule has not yet been challenged before any forum.
40. Though it has been asserted by the respondents that a similar Rule was under challenge in the matter of Arunima Paul (supra) but the petitioners stress that the 2025 Rules were not under challenge. In the said judgment it is seen that the Hon'ble Division Bench has specifically observed, in more than one place, that the Recruitment Rules, 2025, per se, is not under challenge.
41. In view of the above, the Court is of the prima facie opinion that the Commission should immediately publish the list of candidates not specifically tainted so that they may take part in the fresh recruitment process, if they choose to do so.
42. As the last date for filing the application form has been extended till 8th December, 2025, the Commission shall take steps to publish the list prior thereto so that the candidates not 9 specifically tainted can participate in the recruitment process with appropriate age relaxation.
43. If the Commission is unable to publish the list of not specifically tainted candidates by 5 th December, 2025, then the Commission shall permit the candidates whose name does not appear in the list of tainted candidates to participate in the recruitment process with age relaxation. The candidature of such candidates shall, however, be subject to the result of the final outcome of the writ petition.
44. Let the matter appear in the list on 6th January, 2026. Prior thereto all pleadings of the parties shall be concluded.
45. After the order is dictated in open Court, the Commission prays for stay of the same. Such prayer is considered and rejected.
46. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
47. All parties shall act on the basis of a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(Amrita Sinha, J.)