Calcutta HC Dismisses Plea to Switch from General to EWS Category in Second SLST 2025, Cites Articles 14 and 16
A Second SLST 2025 aspirant who lacked an EWS certificate at the time of application could not later convert his candidature to EWS category, the Calcutta High Court held, warning that permitting such conversion would encroach upon the reserved space for genuine EWS candidates.
The High Court at Calcutta dismissed a writ petition filed by a Second SLST 2025 aspirant who sought to change his participation status from the general category to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category after the cut-off date prescribed by the Central School Service Commission. Justice Aniruddha Roy, sitting singly on the Appellate Side in Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, held that the petitioner had no right to make such a conversion, as he did not possess a valid EWS certificate when he applied and had also failed to switch over within the window the Commission had specifically provided for that purpose. The court found the petition devoid of merit and dismissed it without costs.
The Dispute Before the Court
The petitioner, Falguni Maity @ Falguni Maity Samanta, was an aspirant for the Second SLST 2025 selection process conducted by the Central School Service Commission, West Bengal. He did not hold a valid EWS certificate on the date he submitted his application, so he applied under the general category.
He subsequently applied to the issuing authority for an EWS certificate, which was issued in his favour after he had already registered as a general-category candidate. On the strength of the subsequently obtained certificate, he sought to convert his participation status to the EWS category. His advocate, Mr. Sudip Ghosh Chowdhury, pointed to a communication dated 10 August 2026 (Annexure P-9, page 52 of the writ petition) issued by the Joint Commissioner for Reservation and Special Secretary, which requested that the Central School Service Commission consider cases of EWS-eligible candidates who had applied under the general category.
Mr. Ghosh Chowdhury also relied on an order dated 21 August 2026 passed by a co-ordinate Bench in WPA 1543 of 2026 — Sonali Paul & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. — as precedent in favour of the petitioner's claim.
The School Service Commission's Objection
Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, Senior Advocate appearing for the School Service Commission, opposed the prayer. He submitted that the petitioner had already participated and applied as a general-category aspirant and could not now convert his status to the EWS category. He informed the court that the Central School Service Commission had provided a cut-off date within which aspirants were permitted to switch from the general category to the EWS category, and that the petitioner had not availed of that window either. Permitting conversion after that date, Mr. Bhattacharjee argued, would amount to changing the rules of the game mid-way through the selection process.
How the Bench Reasoned
Justice Aniruddha Roy accepted the Commission's submissions on every material point.
The court found it undisputed that the petitioner did not possess an EWS certificate when he applied. The Central School Service Commission had subsequently announced a cut-off date granting aspirants an opportunity to switch from the general category to the EWS category. The petitioner did not apply for such a switch even within that window because he still did not hold the EWS certificate at that stage.
The court held that when there is a codified, well-defined rule for a selection process that has not itself been challenged, that rule “cannot be permitted to be altered or changed.” Any such alteration, it reasoned, would breach the guarantee of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Roy further reasoned that the EWS category represents an earmarked zone within the selection process. Aspirants who genuinely qualified as EWS candidates and participated within that zone carry a legitimate expectation and a right to compete within that reserved space. Allowing a general-category candidate to convert would mean that candidate would encroach on room set aside for EWS candidates, producing unfair and unequal participation. The court stated squarely: within a recruitment process, unequals cannot be treated as equals.
On the specific question of whether the EWS certificate was obtained before or after the cut-off, the court observed that the petitioner did not have the EWS certificate even when the Commission's switch-over window was open. His certificate arrived too late to bring him within any permissible conversion route. Without the certificate at either relevant point — the application date or the conversion cut-off — the petitioner simply did not satisfy the qualifying criterion for EWS candidature at any stage that the Commission had recognised.
Distinguishing the Co-ordinate Bench Order in Sonali Paul
The petitioner had sought to rely on the 21 August 2026 order of a co-ordinate Bench in WPA 1543 of 2026, Sonali Paul & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., where that Bench had found a prima facie case in favour of the petitioners. Justice Roy distinguished the two cases on a factual basis.
In Sonali Paul, the co-ordinate Bench found that the petitioners therein possessed EWS certificates that had been issued well within the cut-off date prescribed by the Commission. The petitioner in the present case did not have his EWS certificate within that cut-off date. Justice Roy held that the ratio of the Sonali Paul order did not apply to the facts before him. The citation of that order, therefore, provided no assistance to the petitioner.
Outcome
Justice Aniruddha Roy dismissed WPA 23185 of 2026 as devoid of merit. No order as to costs was made. Since affidavits had not been called for, the allegations in the writ petition were held not to have been admitted by the respondents. The court noted that parties may take steps on the basis of the server copy of the order once obtained from the official website.