Calcutta HC Upholds PSCWB Junior Engineers Merit List, Rejects Bid to Oust Reserved Category Candidates from Unreserved Vacancies
A Division Bench dismissed a writ challenge to the Tribunal's refusal to reconfigure a 2016 Junior Engineers recruitment merit list, rejecting arguments that reserved category candidates who took relaxed personality-test marks could not occupy unreserved vacancies.
A Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta, comprising Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Prasenjit Biswas, dismissed a writ petition filed by unsuccessful candidates in the Public Service Commission, West Bengal's 2016 recruitment for Junior Engineers (Civil). The petitioners had challenged a West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal order dated 4 September 2025 that refused to disturb the merit list or direct fresh appointments. The core grievance was that reserved category candidates who had benefited from lower qualifying marks in the personality test were wrongly placed in the unreserved category, pushing out the petitioners. The Bench rejected that argument, holding that the final merit list was based on aggregate marks across both examination stages, and no rule or scheme applicable to this recruitment barred such placement. The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
The Recruitment Process and How the Dispute Arose
The Public Service Commission, West Bengal issued Advertisement No. 5 of 2016 on 1 March 2016 for filling posts of Junior Engineers (Civil) in the West Bengal Subordinate Service of Engineers across various departments, directorates and offices.
The selection comprised two stages. A written examination carrying 200 marks was held on 19 June 2016, followed by a personality test carrying 100 marks on 19 September 2016. The result was declared on 16 December 2016, with 1,387 vacancies to be filled. The first batch of recommendations from the merit list came on 20 January 2017, covering 1,082 candidates against subsisting vacancies.
The petitioners, who did not make the cut, filed Original Application No. 1088 of 2017 before the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal. They sought directions to include vacancies from all departments that had been reported to the Commission, and to fill posts accordingly.
Through a Right to Information application, the petitioners obtained information dated 11 September 2017 disclosing two things: three departments — the Development and Planning Department, the Micro and Small-Scale Enterprise and Textile Department, and the Sundarban Affairs Department — had not had their vacancies factored into the process; and the merit list was originally valid only until 7 December 2017.
Despite that validity period, the Commission made 55 additional recommendations on 9 October 2018 against posts that had fallen vacant because earlier recommended candidates did not join. The petitioners argued that the panel's extension to 9 October 2018 should also have covered the vacancies in those three departments, and that had it done so, they would have been appointed.
Earlier Round Before This Bench's Predecessor
The Tribunal disposed of OA No. 1088 of 2017 in an order dated 26 September 2019, which went against the petitioners. They brought that order before this Court in WPST 109 of 2020. A Division Bench, by order dated 17 August 2021, set aside the Tribunal's September 2019 order and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the matter afresh. The Commission was directed to produce all records relating to the selection process and to explain, if required by affidavit, why the petitioners were not recommended. The Bench also directed that any vacancy filled during the pendency before the Tribunal would abide by the outcome of that proceeding.
On remand, the Commission submitted a report and produced records for inspection. The inspection threw up what the petitioners described as a “shocking state of affairs”: reserved category candidates whose personality test marks had been assessed on a relaxed standard had been placed in the general category merit list. Additionally, a few pages were found missing from the records.
The Miscellaneous Application and the Reliefs Sought
On the basis of the inspection findings, the petitioners filed Miscellaneous Application No. 36 of 2025 in the pending OA proceedings. The relief sought was sweeping: the General Standard Merit List for the Junior Engineers (Civil/Mechanical/Electrical) Recruitment Examination 2016 should be set aside, and a large set of candidates — identified by their serial numbers in the merit list — should be re-classified as reserved category candidates and recommended against reserved vacancies. The petitioners sought appointment against the vacancies that would thereby open up in the unreserved category, with effect from the date those reclassified candidates had originally joined service, along with all consequential benefits.
The Tribunal disposed of OA No. 1088 of 2017 by the impugned order dated 4 September 2025 without granting any relief. MA No. 36 of 2025 and MA No. 109 of 2024 were also disposed of in terms of that order. The petitioners then filed WPST 218 of 2025 before the Division Bench, which is the proceeding decided by the judgment under review.
Petitioners' Arguments Before the Division Bench
Senior Advocate Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya, appearing for the petitioners, advanced two main arguments.
On the reserved category placement issue, he contended that once a candidate had been given a relaxation in the assessment of merit, there was no question of placing that candidate against an unreserved category vacancy. He relied on a co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Sahim Hossain and Others v. State of West Bengal and Others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 2751, and on an unreported Supreme Court judgment dated 6 January 2026 in Union of India v. G. Kiran and Others, arising from SLP (C) No. 4743 of 2020.
As an alternative, the senior counsel submitted that even without disturbing the 55 candidates, the Court could direct the authorities to consider and appoint the petitioners on merit against other unreserved vacancies existing in the departments, given the hardship they had suffered over nearly a decade of litigation.
On the three-department vacancies, the petitioners maintained that the Commission should have worked down the merit list to fill those vacancies when the panel was kept alive through 9 October 2018.
Commission's Defence
The advocate for the Commission argued that the Tribunal's order did not warrant interference. On merit, the Commission's position was straightforward: the petitioners were not recommended because their aggregate marks were lower than the aggregate marks of the last recommended candidates in their category.
On the placement of the 55 reserved category candidates in the unreserved list, the Commission pointed to the Scheme and Syllabus published on its website alongside the advertisement. That Scheme provided that the final merit list would be prepared on the basis of total marks obtained in both the written examination and the personality test. The Commission's stand was that it was the aggregate that governed placement, not the qualifying marks threshold for the personality test individually. The difference in personality test qualifying marks — 40 for general category, lower for OBC, SC and ST candidates as confirmed in the Minutes of a Full Commission Meeting held on 19 September 2014 — was relevant only as a qualifying threshold, not as a disqualification from the common merit list.
On the three departments, the Commission stated that those departments simply had not reported any vacancies for inclusion in the recruitment process. Since no vacancies were reported, there was nothing to advertise or fill. The Commission proceeds only on the basis of vacancies reported by Government departments.
How the Division Bench Reasoned
The Bench identified two substantive issues and addressed each in turn.
On the reserved category placement argument: The Bench examined the two judgments cited by the petitioners. In Sahim Hossain, the co-ordinate Bench had held that reserved category candidates could be placed in the unreserved category if they had taken no benefit in the selection process beyond statutory concessions, and since West Bengal had no prohibition equivalent to that in Gujarat. In G. Kiran, the Supreme Court had held that where a reserved category candidate had availed relaxed standards in eligibility or selection criteria at any stage, allocation of an unreserved vacancy to that candidate would be contrary to the applicable rules and policy.
The Division Bench observed that neither judgment laid down a universal proposition. Both courts had examined the question with reference to the specific rules, policy, and scheme governing the particular recruitment under consideration. The Bench then turned to the Scheme and Minutes applicable here.
The Scheme governing this recruitment required the final merit list to be based on aggregate marks across written examination and personality test. No provision in the Scheme or the Minutes barred a reserved category candidate from being placed in the unreserved category solely because that candidate had availed a lower qualifying mark in the personality test. The aggregate was what governed. A lower qualifying threshold in one stage of a multi-stage process did not amount to the kind of relaxation that would bar unreserved category placement under the reasoning of Sahim Hossain or G. Kiran.
The Bench therefore held that the 55 candidates were rightly placed in the unreserved category on the basis of their higher aggregate marks, and the Tribunal had no occasion to conclude otherwise.
There was a further procedural obstacle. The petitioners had sought relief that would effectively remove the 55 candidates from the unreserved category — but none of those 55 individuals had been impleaded, either in the original application before the Tribunal or in the writ proceeding. Granting relief behind their backs was impermissible. The Bench also noted that shifting those 55 candidates to the reserved category would itself displace another 55 candidates already selected under the reserved category, again without any hearing. The relief sought would require a wholesale reworking of the entire result.
On the three-department vacancies: The Bench accepted the Commission's position. Those departments had not reported vacancies to the Commission at the relevant time. The Commission cannot advertise or fill vacancies that have not been reported to it. It is for the Government to decide, based on administrative, financial, and infrastructural considerations, which vacancies to report. The petitioners had no enforceable right in respect of unreported vacancies, and neither the Tribunal nor the writ Court could direct the Commission to fill them.
On the alternative relief: The Bench declined the fallback submission that the petitioners should at least be considered against other existing vacancies in the departments. The petitioners had not established that any of them stood next in merit after the last selected candidate. Even if vacancies were to be made available, there was no certainty that the petitioners would occupy them by merit. The Bench also noted that by the time of hearing, no vacancies were left. The last recommendations in the recruitment process had been made on 9 October 2018.
On this basis, the Bench found that the Tribunal had rightly declined to re-assess the entire recruitment process, and no infirmity was made out in the Tribunal's order rejecting the original application and the miscellaneous applications.
Outcome
The Division Bench dismissed W.P.S.T. 218 of 2025. There was no order as to costs. The Bench directed that urgent certified copies of the order be made available to the parties on compliance with necessary formalities. Justice Prasenjit Biswas recorded his concurrence with the judgment authored by Justice Madhuresh Prasad.