Calcutta HC Dismisses SLST 2025 Plea of OBC-A Candidates Whose Reserved Category Was Struck Down

Candidates who applied to SLST 2025 under OBC-A after the Division Bench invalidated their reserved categories in 2024 had no enforceable right to maintain the writ, the court held.

Justice Aniruddha Roy, sitting singly at the High Court at Calcutta, dismissed two writ petitions filed by aspirants for the Second State Level Selection Test, 2025 (SLST 2025) who had applied under the OBC-A reserved category. The petitioners — referred to collectively as SLST aspirants — had featured in the Final Merit Panel for Classes XI–XII posts. They challenged notifications issued by the Central School Service Commission (CSSC) in August 2026 that required OBC candidates to re-declare their sub-category, failing which their candidatures would be treated as Unreserved (General). The court found that, following the Division Bench judgment in Amal Chandra Das v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (2024 SCC OnLine Cal 5389), the petitioners had no subsisting right to claim reserved-category status in SLST 2025, and that no appointment letter having been issued, no vested right arose in their favour.

The Dispute Before the Court

The notification for SLST 2025 was published on 30 May 2025. The petitioners applied as OBC-A candidates and cleared the written examination. On 21 January 2026, the Final Merit List with Warning List was published, and the petitioners' names appeared as OBC-A candidates. Counselling was scheduled for 14 August 2026 but was deferred by a CSSC notice dated 11 August 2026.

On 19 August 2026 and again on 21 August 2026, the CSSC issued notifications stating that any candidate who failed to re-declare their OBC sub-category or category details by 25 August 2026 would automatically have their candidature treated under the Unreserved (General) Category, with no extension or representation permitted. The petitioners challenged these notifications, along with earlier notifications dated 10 August 2026 and 11 August 2026, which had suspended the verification and counselling process.

The reliefs sought included quashing the CSSC and Backward Classes Welfare Department notifications, a declaration that “Reserved Category” in SLST 2025 must be determined as per the reservation policy in force on 2 September 2025 (the last date for applications), and directions to resume verification and counselling under the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection for Appointment to the Post of Assistant Teachers) Rules, 2025 (the 2025 Rules).

The Legal Issue: Whether Petitioners Retained OBC-A Status After Amal Chandra Das

The central question was whether petitioners who had been selected as OBC-A candidates in SLST 2016 — a selection process subsequently annulled — could claim reserved-category status when participating afresh in SLST 2025, given that the Division Bench in Amal Chandra Das had struck down the caste certificates of the categories to which the petitioners belonged.

For the petitioners, Mr. Pratik Dhar, learned Senior Advocate, argued that direction (k) of the Amal Chandra Das judgment expressly protected persons who had “already availed the benefit of reservation or have succeeded in any selection process in the State.” The petitioners, belonging to the “Mondals” community within the 77 struck-down classes, had been selected in SLST 2016 and their reservation status was therefore shielded. He also relied on an order of the Supreme Court dated 26 November 2025 in Bibek Paria & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. observing that untainted candidates in the past selection could not be adversely affected by the new 2025 Rules.

Mr. Dhar further relied on a Supreme Court order dated 29 August 2025 in the same matter, which directed that untainted candidates permitted to continue in service until 31 December 2025 could participate in the fresh selection process without having to meet the newly introduced eligibility criteria of 50 per cent minimum marks in graduation and post-graduation. He argued that converting the petitioners' candidatures to Unreserved would change the “rule of the game” mid-process, relying on Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., (2025) 2 SCC 1.

For the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate, countered that Amal Chandra Das had invalidated the very caste certificates underpinning the petitioners' OBC-A status. The State had preferred an SLP from that judgment and subsequently withdrew it on 14 July 2026, giving the Division Bench ruling its finality. She argued that SLST 2025 is an independent process with no nexus to SLST 2016 and that the petitioners, whose reserved categories were struck down before the SLST 2025 notification was issued, had no basis to apply as OBC-A candidates in 2025. The Supreme Court's workable arrangements permitting untainted candidates to continue in employment were ad hoc measures that created no right or equity in favour of the petitioners for the fresh recruitment.

Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharya, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the CSSC, adopted the Board's submissions and added that the impugned notifications of 19 and 21 August 2026 were issued pursuant to a State policy decision dated 7 August 2026 — a policy that had not itself been challenged. He submitted that until an appointment letter is received, no right exists to challenge any stage of a selection process.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Roy examined, at the threshold, whether the petitioners had any valid and lawful right enforceable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He held that they did not, for three compounding reasons.

First, the Division Bench judgment in Amal Chandra Das was delivered on 22 May 2024. The SLST 2025 notification followed on 30 May 2025 — after the Division Bench had already struck down the reserved categories to which the petitioners belonged. The State's SLP from that judgment was withdrawn on 14 July 2026, and any stay that may have operated during the pendency of the SLP was vacated as a consequence of withdrawal. The court concluded that as on the date the SLST 2025 process commenced, the petitioners had no right to apply under the OBC-A/Reserved category.

Second, the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) & Ors., SLP (Civil) No. 9586 of 2024, decided on 3 April 2025, upheld the Division Bench and cancelled the entire SLST 2016 selection process en bloc. Even untainted candidates' services were terminated. The court quoted the Supreme Court's conclusions at length: the entire selection was declared null and void for violations of Articles 14 and 16; appointments were cancelled; no appointment could be made once the examination process and results had been declared void. The ad hoc continuance of employment extended to some untainted candidates was expressly described as an arrangement that created “no right or equity in their favour.”

On harmonious reading of Amal Chandra Das and Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee), Justice Roy held that the petitioners could claim no right under the SLST 2016 panel (which had ceased to exist) and equally could claim no right under the OBC-A/Reserved category (which had been invalidated).

Third, on the question of vested rights in a selection process, the court reaffirmed settled law: an aspirant can participate in a selection process if they meet the criteria, but no vested right is created until an appointment letter is issued. Admittedly, no appointment letter had been issued to any of the petitioners.

The court also addressed the “rule of the game” argument based on Tej Prakash Pathak. Justice Roy held that the State had not changed the rule of the game; it had merely adopted its own Reservation Policy. The CSSC notifications of 19 and 21 August 2026 were issued in terms of the State's policy decision dated 7 August 2026, and since the petitioners had no right to challenge that reservation policy, they could not impugn the notifications that implemented it. The CSSC was found to have merely adopted the State's policy.

Regarding the Supreme Court's directions in Bibek Paria and the August 2025 order — that the 2025 Rules should not adversely affect untainted candidates — the court distinguished those directions as addressing the applicability of new eligibility criteria under the 2025 Rules. The reservation policy, the court agreed with the respondents, is a separate matter from the 2025 Rules, and those Supreme Court directions did not operate to restore the OBC-A status of candidates whose reserved categories had been struck down.

Outcome

Justice Aniruddha Roy held both writ petitions devoid of merit and not maintainable. WPA 23207 of 2026 and WPA 23209 of 2026 were dismissed, without any order as to costs. Parties were directed to act on the server copy of the order available on the official website of the court.