Application Of Roster Point To Clear And Anticipated Vacancies Prevents Anomalous Appointments: Calcutta HC

Background Facts

The Public Service Commission, West Bengal published an advertisement on 30.12.2022 for the West Bengal Judicial Service Examination, 2022, to fill the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The advertisement categorized the 29 total vacancies into 12 clear vacancies and 17 anticipated vacancies. A separate reservation roster was applied to each category. The appellant applied as an OBC(A) category candidate. She participated in the selection process comprising a Preliminary Examination, a Final Examination, and a Personality Test. The Commission published a combined merit list on 13.05.2024. The appellant ranked 36^th in the list.

A subsequent list was published on 14.05.2024, which recommended candidates for appointment by applying the roster points separately to the clear and anticipated vacancies. However, the appellant was not selected because she was the fourth-ranked candidate within her OBC(A) category. Only three OBC(A) vacancies were available where one vacancy was from the clear and two were from the anticipated list.

The appellant made a representation on 29.05.2024. She contended that if all 29 vacancies were clubbed together into a single pool, then top-ranked OBC(A) candidate would have been adjusted against an unreserved post on her own merit. This would have freed up all three reserved OBC(A) vacancies for the next three candidates in the category including her. But her representation yielded no result. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a petition. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed an appeal.

It was submitted by the appellant that based on the combined merit list published on 13.05.2024, the principle of one selection, one select list should have been followed. It was further submitted that if the clear and anticipated vacancies were taken together, the top-ranked OBC(A) candidate, who featured high in the overall merit, should have been treated as an own merit candidate. Therefore, she should have been adjusted against an unreserved vacancy. Hence, all three reserved OBC(A) vacancies would have been available for the next three eligible OBC(A) candidates, which included the appellant.

It was further contended that the Commission introduced an impermissible additional stage between the declaration of the final result and the recommendation for appointment. It was emphasized that a letter dated 26.07.2022 from the Principal Secretary, Judicial Department, substantiated that the 12 clear and 17 anticipated vacancies were required to be considered together for filling up the posts, because the anticipated vacancies had fructified by the time.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondents that the number of appointments cannot exceed the number of advertised vacancies. The Commission distinctly classified 12 vacancies as clear and 17 as anticipated. There were separate reservation rosters for each category. The judgment in The Registrar (Judicial Service) High Court, Appellate Side, Calcutta vs. Moumita Sen & Ors., was relied upon by the respondents which had approved the practice of calculating roster points separately for clear and anticipated vacancies. It was contended that this method was necessary to prevent an anomalous situation.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that there was no fault in the Commission's action of applying roster points separately to the clear and anticipated vacancies. The case of The Registrar (Judicial Service) High Court, Appellate Side, Calcutta vs. Moumita Sen & Ors. was relied upon by the court wherein it was held that out of 25 (twenty five) anticipated vacancies, 10 (ten) did not fructify which may deprive candidates ranked higher in the merit list under reserved category in obtaining berth in the cadre.

It was further observed by the court that the appellant participated in the recruitment process knowing the rules and bifurcation between clear and anticipated vacancies as stated in the advertisement therefore, she could not challenge the terms after being unsuccessful. The case of Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar was relied upon which states the same principle.

It was held by the court that clubbing all vacancies together could lead to an anomalous and inequitable outcome. The candidates selected against anticipated vacancies that later did not materialize could be unfairly deprived of appointment, while lower-ranked candidates from the same category in the clear list secured posts. It was found by the court that the respondent authorities had complied with the directives by notifying both existing and anticipated vacancies. It was held that the process undertaken was not in conflict with the directives of the Supreme Court.

With the aforesaid observations, the Appeal filed by the appellant candidate was dismissed by the court.

Case Name : Ivana Hossaini & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No. : FMA 697 of 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Abhratosh Majumder, Firdous Samim, Gopa Biswas, Mainak Ghosal, Hasanuz Zaman Molla, Rajarshree Saha, Ankita Ghosh, Advocates

Counsel for the Respondents : Biswabrata Basu Mallick, Ld. AGP, Gourav Das, P.B. Mahato, Advocates