A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, led by Justices Debangsu Basak and Saugata Bhattacharyya, has held that applying roster points separately to "clear" and "anticipated" vacancies is necessary to prevent anomalous and unfair appointments in recruitment processes. In a case concerning the recruitment to the West Bengal Judicial Service (Civil Judge, Junior Division), the Court upheld the practice of separate roster application to clear and anticipated vacancies, rejecting a candidate’s challenge to that method.
The controversy arose from an advertisement issued by the West Bengal Public Service Commission in December 2022, which categorized 29 total vacancies into 12 "clear" vacancies and 17 "anticipated" vacancies, applying separate reservation rosters for each category. The appellant, who belonged to the OBC(A) category, participated in the selection process and was placed 36th in the combined merit list. When the final appointments were made using separate rosters, she was excluded because she was fourth in the OBC(A) ranking, while only three OBC(A) posts were available—one in the clear list and two in the anticipated list.
The appellant argued that all 29 vacancies should have been treated as a single pool. She contended that had that been done, the top OBC(A) candidate, whose merit was high, would be allocated to a general category post on merit, thereby freeing up an additional reserved slot for the next OBC(A) candidate, which would enable her inclusion. She further asserted that the Commission introduced an additional stage between the final merit list and appointment by reapplying reservation rosters, which was objectionable. She also produced a letter from the Judicial Department indicating that both existing and anticipated vacancies were to be considered together, since the anticipated posts had materialized by that time.
The respondents, i.e. the Commission and the State, defended their approach. They maintained that the advertisement itself had bifurcated vacancies into clear and anticipated categories and provided for separate rosters. The practice of applying rosters separately to both categories had precedent in earlier judgments. They contended that treating all posts as a single pool could lead to distortions and anomalies, especially if some anticipated vacancies did not eventually arise. They cited the decision in Registrar (Judicial Service), Calcutta HC vs. Moumita Sen & Ors., which had approved separate roster application in similar circumstances, especially to guard against unfairness where anticipated vacancies may not fructify.
Upon review, the Court agreed with the respondents. It found no fault in applying roster points separately to clear and anticipated vacancies. The Court concluded that the appellant, having participated with knowledge of the bifurcation, could not later challenge the terms after failing to secure appointment. The Court also agreed that clubbing all vacancies could lead to absurd outcomes: if anticipated vacancies failed to materialize, higher-ranked reservation category candidates could be excluded unfairly in favor of others. The Court held that the Commission’s practice was not contrary to Supreme Court directives and was consistent with safeguarding both fairness and predictability in recruitment.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the appointment process as valid and rejecting the appellant’s claim that she was unjustly excluded by the roster method adopted.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.