The Calcutta High Court reaffirms that reservation norms for promotional posts apply only after written‐exam qualification, distinguishes earlier Division Bench ruling and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/5157/2024 of SANGITA PRAMANIK (DAS) Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0099412024 |
| Date of Registration | 23-02-2024 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single-judge bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Administrative/Service law |
| Questions of Law | Whether reservation norms apply to candidates who fail to clear the written examination. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | Division Bench decision dated 24-01-2025 in MAT 493 of 2024 (State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Papiya Ghosal (Maity) & Ors.) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, an in-service candidate for ICDS Supervisor promotion, sat for a two-phase selection (written and viva), failed the written exam and was not called to viva. She sought RTI disclosure of reasons for non-qualification and challenged non-application of reservation policies. The court held that failing the written threshold obviates any right to reservation, and dismissed the petition. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and Service Tribunals |
| Distinguishes | Division Bench decision in State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Papiya Ghosal (Maity) & Ors. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reservation in promotion selections applies only after the candidate clears the written‐exam cutoff.
- A candidate unsuccessful at the written stage cannot claim reservation in subsequent phases.
- The Division Bench ruling in Papiya Ghosal (Maity) & Ors. does not extend to written‐exam failures and is confined to viva‐stage disqualifications.
- RTI non-compliance cannot create a right to reservation or selection when the candidate has not met the threshold requirement.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The selection process for ICDS Supervisor is two-phased: a written examination followed by viva voce for those who qualify.
- The petitioner did not clear the written examination and was thus ineligible for the viva voce stage.
- Reservation policies (Union policy of 15-09-2015 and State policy of 07-03-2019) are only triggered once a candidate has cleared the initial cutoff.
- The Division Bench decision in the Papiya Ghosal case addressed reservation claims of candidates who were disqualified at the viva stage, not those who failed the written stage.
- Since no threshold qualification occurred, no right to invocation of reservation arose; the petition was devoid of merit and dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The published reservation policies (15-09-2015 Union policy and 07-03-2019 State policy) entitled her to zone-of-consideration.
- She filed an RTI seeking reasons for non-qualification, suggesting procedural unfairness.
Respondent No.2 (State)
- The selection process conformed to relevant rules and reservation policy; no right attaches to candidates failing the written exam.
- Failure at the written stage ends entitlement to further consideration.
Respondent No.4 (PSC)
- Conducted the selection as per the requisition from the appointing authority; not responsible for appointment decisions.
Factual Background
The petitioner, an in-service candidate, applied for promotion to the post of ICDS Supervisor under a two-phase selection process: a written examination and a viva voce. She failed the written exam and was not called for the viva. She then filed an RTI request seeking reasons for her non-qualification and challenged the non-application of reservation norms. The Calcutta High Court held that without clearing the written threshold, no entitlement to reservation or further consideration arose, and dismissed the petition.
Statutory Analysis
- The court referred to the Government of India policy dated 15-09-2015 and the State policy dated 07-03-2019 on reservation for promotional posts.
- It interpreted that these reservation provisions apply only after a candidate has met the written-exam cutoff, and cannot be “read in” to waive threshold qualification.
- No constitutional or other statutory provisions were directly invoked.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed