The Calcutta High Court clarified that a candidate ranking below the notified number of vacancies (third against a single vacancy) cannot claim an appointment as of right, and unexplained delay in approaching the court also bars relief. This decision upholds the prevailing legal position on selection process outcomes and delay/laches, serving as binding authority for similar service law matters under its jurisdiction.
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 |
| Bench | Court No. 2, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri, Appellate Side |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Calcutta High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Service Law (Appointment to Reserved Post) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that where only one vacancy is notified under a reserved category, a candidate placed third in merit under that category has no right to appointment. Furthermore, the court noted that the challenge was made long after the 2016 process, with no explanation for the delay, and on that ground alone, no relief can be given. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, claiming to be from the Scheduled Caste, challenged the non-appointment to the ICTC Counselor post, despite being third in merit in 2016. Only one vacancy was notified for Scheduled Caste; writ filed in 2025. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Calcutta High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering similar issues of merit ranking and delay in selection disputes |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that mere participation in a selection process or being empaneled does not guarantee appointment; only those within the notified vacancies may claim so.
- Court refuses relief for claims brought after an inordinate and unexplained delay, even if substantive arguments exist.
- The decision confirms lack of locus for non-selected/lower-ranked candidates in public employment litigation regarding non-appointment.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court found the petitioner’s rank under the Scheduled Caste category was third, whereas only one vacancy existed. There is no claim as of right to a position for candidates beyond the notified number of vacancies.
- The court highlighted the selection occurred in 2016, while the challenge was initiated only in 2025. Such an unexplained, substantial delay justifies refusal of relief on grounds of laches.
- Both on merit (no right to appointment when not within vacancy) and procedural grounds (inordinate delay), the writ petition was dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought direction for appointment as ICTC Counselor, claiming eligibility and successful participation in the selection process, and Scheduled Caste status.
Respondent (State)
- Submitted that only one vacancy was available under the Scheduled Caste category.
- Stated the petitioner ranked third and thus had no rightful claim to the position.
Factual Background
The petitioner, claiming Scheduled Caste status, participated in a 2016 selection process for the post of ICTC Counselor conducted by the respondent authorities. Only one vacancy was notified for the Scheduled Caste category, and the petitioner was placed third in merit within that category. The authorities did not select him. The petitioner filed a writ petition in 2025, seeking a direction for appointment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision follows and reaffirms settled law on right to appointment and laches in service law matters.