Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pradip Biswas & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 17 February, 2026
Author: Amrita Sinha
Bench: Amrita Sinha
17th Feb., 2026
Item no.D/L 07
Court No. 18
In the High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Pradip, A.R.(Ct.)
Appellate Side
Case No. WPA 3343 of 2026
In the matter of :
Pradip Biswas & Ors.
.... Petitioners
VS.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
....Respondents
For the Petitioners:
Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta Mr. Ali Ahsan Alamgir Ms. Soma Mal Ms. Munni Barman ....Advocates For the State:
Mr. Vivekananda Bode, Ld. Jr. SSC Mr. Kushal Das ....Advocates For the WBBSE:
Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya Mr. Bibek Datta Mr. Manas Bhattacharyya ....Advocates For the WBCSSC:
Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Sr. Adv. Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharyya Ms. Pramiti Bandopadhyay Mr. Arka Kumar Nag Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh ....Advocates
1. Affidavit of service and the receipt showing submission of deficit Court fees filed in Court today are taken on record.
2. The petitioners claim to be physically handicapped category candidates with benchmark locomotor disability.
3. They were initially issued reservation certificate mentioning that they were orthopedically handicapped. After implementation of the Page 2 Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, they have been issued reservation certificate by mentioning that they have locomotor disability.
4. The petitioners participated in the recruitment process, that is, SLST-
2025 conducted by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission. They filled in the application form by disclosing their category PH-OH and paid the application fees meant for reserved category candidates.
5. They are aggrieved as they have been treated as general, that is, unreserved category candidates.
6. Submission of the petitioners is that there was no scope and/or opportunity for the petitioners to disclose their nature of disability in the application form.
7. Reservation for the orthopedically handicapped or the candidates with locomotor disability was only available for the scheduled caste category candidates. For the unreserved/general category candidate, there was no opportunity to disclose their nature of disability.
8. It has been submitted that if the petitioners are not being provided the reservation in terms of the Act, then the same is illegal. The same is also contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 3rd April, 2025 in the matter of State of West Bengal Vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) & Ors.
9. In paragraph 49 of the aforesaid judgment the Court specifically recorded that the disabled candidates will be allowed to participate in the fresh selection process, if required, with age relaxation and other concessions.
Page 3
10. Non-granting the benefit of reservation to the general category physically handicapped candidates is also contrary to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 26th November, 2025 in the matter of Bibek Paria & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. wherein the Court directed that the High Court shall be mindful of the fact that the untainted candidates in the past selection were allowed to sit for the selections tests to be held afresh and their candidature cannot be adversely affected by application of the new Rules.
11. It has been submitted that the Labour Department of the State has published a notification on 27th January, 2026 by publishing the model 100 point roster of vacancies. The said notification has been made in supersession of the department's earlier notification dated 13th June, 2025. The Commission is following the 100 point roster published by the department on 13th June, 2025. The Commission ought to follow the roaster which was prevailing on the day of publication of the recruitment notice and not the one which came in the midst of the recruitment process which started in May, 2025.
12. An interim prayer has been made to direct the respondent Commission not to treat the petitioners as general category candidates for the time being.
13. The submissions and the prayer of the petitioners are opposed by the respondents.
14. It has been submitted that the recruitment notice has been published relying on the vacancy statement received by the Commission. There is no vacancy reserved for the general category physically handicapped candidates with locomotor disability.
Page 4 Locomotor disabled candidates in the scheduled caste category have only been reserved.
15. It has been submitted that the 100 point roster not being challenged at the initial stage or in the instant writ petition, the roster cannot be interfered with by the Court as there is no provision for reservation general category physically challenged - locomotor disability in the roster. There is no scope for providing any benefit of reservation to the petitioners.
16. Prayer has been made to permit the respondents to file affidavit in the writ petition.
17. Learned advocates representing the respective parties have placed before this Court Section 34 of the Act which mentions that every appropriate Government shall appoint in every Government establishment, not less than four per cent of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts meant to be filled with persons with benchmark disabilities of which, one per cent each shall be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (a), (b) and (c) and one per cent for persons with benchmark disabilities under clauses (d) and (e), namely:-- (a) blindness and low vision; (b) deaf and hard of hearing; (c) locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy.
18. Rule 11 (2) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 has been placed before this Court which mentions that every Government establishment shall maintain a vacancy based roster for the purpose of calculation of vacancies for persons with benchmark Page 5 disabilities in the cadre strength as per the instructions issued by the appropriate Government from time to time.
19. Rule 11 (4) of the aforesaid Rules mentions that the reservation for persons with disabilities in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of the Act shall be horizontal and the vacancies for persons with benchmark disabilities shall be maintained as a separate class.
20. It appears that despite there being provision in the Act for reservation of vacancies for benchmark disabilities, the candidates having locomotor disability have not been provided with the benefit of reservation. Admittedly, the roster pursuant to which the recruitment process is being conducted has not been challenged.
21. The issue to be decided in the instant writ petition is - can a candidate with benchmark disability be treated as a general category candidate contrary to the provision of the Act.
22. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioners are participating for recruitment in Class - IX & X level. The preliminary list has been published but the process of credential verification is yet to be conducted. The petitioners feature in the preliminary list.
23. As the issue has to be decided upon exchange of affidavits, let affidavit in opposition by the respondents be prepared and circulated within a period of four weeks from date. Reply, if any, be prepared and circulated within a fortnight thereafter.
24. Liberty to mention the matter for hearing immediately after conclusion of the aforesaid time period.
Page 6
25. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Commission may proceed with the credential verification and steps further thereto but the candidature of the petitioners shall not be rejected outright at this stage by treating them as general category candidates.
26. The fate of the candidature of the petitioners shall abide by the result of the writ petition.
27. Parties to act on the basis of the server copy of this order, duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
28. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Amrita Sinha, J.)