The Calcutta High Court has clarified that a candidate ranked below the notified number of vacancies cannot claim appointment in public service purely on the ground of selection success. The judgment upholds established precedent and reinforces that unexplained delay in approaching the writ court is an additional bar to relief. This ruling provides binding authority within West Bengal and persuasive value elsewhere, particularly for government and public sector recruitment matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/2131/2025 of RAMESH CHANDRA BARMAN Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCJ0050782025 |
| Date of Registration | 26-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri (Appellate Side) |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in West Bengal; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Service Law (Public Employment, Administrative Law) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that when there is only one vacancy under the Scheduled Caste category and the petitioner held the third position, no enforceable right to appointment exists. Mere success in the selection process does not guarantee appointment where the notified vacancy is exhausted by higher-ranked candidates. Furthermore, the court held that a writ petition challenging such selection outcomes after unexplained delay, especially when the selection process dates back to 2016 and the writ was filed in 2025, is not maintainable. Both the lack of merit in the substantive claim and the procedural delay warrant dismissal. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner sought directions for appointment to the post of ICTC Councillor under the Scheduled Caste category, claiming success in the selection process. The respondent State clarified there was only one SC category vacancy and the petitioner ranked third in that list. The selection was from 2016; writ petition filed in 2025. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Subordinate courts and authorities in West Bengal; State and public sector recruitment authorities. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and public service commissions across India. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that candidates must fall within the number of notified vacancies to claim a right to appointment in public service recruitments.
- Unexplained and substantial delay in filing writ petitions against selection outcomes will be a bar to judicial relief.
- Lawyers should pay special attention to the rank of their clients in the selection list vis-à-vis category-wise vacancies before filing similar cases.
- Courts continue to resist interference in recruitment processes long after the conclusion of selection unless exceptional circumstances are shown.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court began by noting the petitioner’s request for appointment to the ICTC Councillor post in the Scheduled Caste category.
- The respondent authorities demonstrated that only one SC vacancy existed, and the petitioner’s rank was third.
- The court reasoned that only those within the notified vacancies obtain any right to appointment; those below cut-off have no enforceable claim.
- Additionally, the court observed that the selection process was in 2016, but the writ was filed in 2025. The petitioner offered no explanation for this delay.
- The combination of lack of merit and inordinate, unexplained delay compels dismissal.
- The court dismissed the writ petition for want of merit and gross laches (delay).
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Claimed entitlement to appointment as ICTC Councillor on the basis of selection and belonging to the Scheduled Caste category.
- Argued that despite being successful in the selection process, was not appointed.
Respondent (State):
- Asserted that only a single vacancy was available for the Scheduled Caste category.
- Presented that the petitioner’s rank was third amongst SC candidates.
- Contended that the petitioner could not claim appointment since he was not within the available vacancy.
Factual Background
The petitioner participated in a selection process for the post of ICTC Councillor under the Scheduled Caste category. The selection process had only one vacancy reserved for SC candidates. Though the petitioner claimed success, he was ranked third on the SC merit list. The respondent authorities did not offer him the appointment. The selection process took place in 2016, but the writ petition was not filed until 2025.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment refers to principles of public employment and recruitment through administrative (service) law.
- It confirms that only those candidates within the notified number of vacancies have a right to be considered for appointment.
- The judgment applies the principle that unexplained and extraordinary delay in filing a writ petition (laches) is fatal to such claims.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Judgment affirms existing principles that:
- Only candidates within the notified vacancies have enforceable appointment rights.
- Gross and unexplained delay disentitles relief in service matters.