The Calcutta High Court reiterates that a candidate who consciously chooses not to participate in a scheduled selection process forfeits her right to claim appointment at a later stage, even if subsequent events (such as loss of alternative employment) occur. The ruling upholds existing precedent, affirming that non-participation in the selection step extinguishes consequential rights. This judgment stands as binding authority for service selection disputes in West Bengal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/9187/2025 of JUTHIKA MONDAL Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. CNR WBCHCA0182482025 |
| Date of Registration | 23-04-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in West Bengal |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Education |
| Questions of Law |
Whether a candidate who did not participate in the designated stage (personality test) of an earlier selection process, having benefitted from revised selection criteria, can claim reconsideration for appointment if circumstances later change (such as loss of alternative employment). |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that a candidate who, having received benefit from an order enhancing marks in a selection process, consciously chooses not to participate in a subsequent mandatory stage (here, the personality test), loses any right to be considered for appointment arising out of that process. The subsequent loss of an alternative job does not revive or recreate the previously forfeited right. Thus, the selection process cannot be reopened for such a candidate. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner received enhanced marks and was called for a personality test in 2022 but chose not to participate due to her selection in another job. After losing that alternative job pursuant to a later Supreme Court order, she sought permission to now participate in the earlier missed personality test. The Court found that non-participation constituted forfeiture of opportunity and rejected the request for reconsideration. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts handling similar service-selection disputes |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that non-participation in a scheduled selection stage forfeits the right to future consideration in that selection process, regardless of any later change in circumstances.
- Confirms that loss of alternative employment does not revive a forfeited right in a previously declined selection opportunity.
- Clarifies that courts will not reopen or revive selection processes for candidates who failed to participate at the designated time, even if prior administrative or judicial orders benefitted the candidate.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that the petitioner, having derived benefit from the July 2022 order (which led to re-evaluation and an opportunity to participate in the personality test), voluntarily opted not to attend said test in November 2022, choosing to continue in another appointment instead.
- The State and Commission argued, and the Court agreed, that by failing to avail herself of the personality test opportunity, the petitioner lost any right to appointment in the concerned selection process.
- The subsequent Supreme Court decision that led to loss of her alternative post does not revive the petitioner’s earlier right, since her non-participation operated as a waiver or forfeiture.
- No relief could be granted as the claim was not maintainable without participation in the essential selection stage.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought permission to participate in the personality test for the 12th RLST, 2011 selection, referring to a 2022 memo allowing such participation.
- Grounded prayer on the loss of her other Assistant Teacher post due to a subsequent Supreme Court judgment.
Respondents (State & Commission)
- Opposed the writ petition.
- Submitted that the petitioner forfeited her right by electing not to participate in the personality test when called.
- Argued that no right to appointment in the 12th RLST, 2011 process survives after her non-participation.
Factual Background
The petitioner had participated in a 2011 selection process for Assistant Teacher but was not initially selected. She later benefitted from a 2022 judicial order directing re-evaluation of answer keys, resulting in a call for a personality test. However, as the petitioner had already secured appointment through a 2016 selection, she did not attend the scheduled personality test in 2022. Following her loss of that job due to a Supreme Court judgment in April 2025, she approached the High Court seeking reconsideration for the earlier post.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment turned on application of administrative and procedural rules in teacher selection by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission. The Court focused on the legal effect of non-participation in the scheduled personality test pursuant to a selection memo, holding that express opportunities under selection rules, once forfeited, do not generate subsequent rights to consideration, even if external events (loss of other employment) intervene.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules or innovations were introduced; the Court followed existing procedure in dismissing the writ petition.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Calcutta High Court reaffirmed existing legal principles regarding forfeiture of right due to non-participation in the selection process.