The Calcutta High Court underscored the necessity of applying roster points separately for “clear” and “anticipated” vacancies in recruitment exercises to safeguard against unfair and anomalous appointments. In a benchmark ruling addressing recruitment to the West Bengal Judicial Service (Civil Judge, Junior Division), the Division Bench held that segregating vacancies into two categories and applying distinct rosters was consistent with fairness, transparency and prior judicial precedent.
The background of the dispute involves an advertisement issued by the West Bengal Public Service Commission in December 2022. The notification listed a total of 29 vacancies for Civil Judge (Junior Division), categorised into 12 “clear” vacancies—those already sanctioned and approved—and 17 “anticipated” vacancies—expected to be approved by the appropriate authority during the process. The advertisement explicitly stated that separate reservation rosters would apply for each category. A candidate belonging to the OBC(A) category participated in the selection, ranking 36th in the combined merit list. However, due to the separate rosters, only one OBC(A) post was available in the clear-vacancy category and two in the anticipated category. As a result, the candidate was excluded despite her higher aggregate ranking, as she ranked fourth among OBC(A) candidates when only three posts were available.
The appellant challenged the scheme, arguing that all 29 posts should have been treated as a single pool. She asserted that if the examination had treated clear and anticipated vacancies together, the top OBC(A) candidate would have taken a merit slot in the general category, freeing a reserved seat for her. She further submitted that the Commission introduced an additional layer of roster application after the final merit list—an approach she contended was unfair and contrary to the principles of equality. The appellant also produced a letter from the Judicial Department indicating that both clear and anticipated vacancies were to be considered jointly, since anticipated posts had materialised by the time of appointment.
The Commission and State respondents defended their process, pointing to the advertisement’s express bifurcation of vacancies and the existence of precedent. They contended that combining the two categories would open the door to unforeseen distortions—particularly if anticipated vacancies did not eventually materialise. They cited earlier judicial pronouncements that upheld separate roster application in such scenarios, stating that the separation helps prevent unfair displacement when anticipated posts fail to materialise.
Upon analysis, the High Court upheld the Commission’s approach. It found no basis to interfere, as the advertisement itself provided sufficient notice of the bifurcation and the candidate was aware of the process. The Court held that separate rosters for clear and anticipated vacancies did not violate constitutional or statutory principles. It reinforced the view that recruitment processes must maintain a “rational nexus” with the nature of the post and the mode of selection. The Court emphasised that when anticipated vacancies are carved out but may not materialise, combining them with clear vacancies could lead to higher-ranked candidates being excluded unfairly. The bench concluded that the Commission’s method struck an appropriate balance between fair opportunity and administrative realism.
In dismissing the appeal, the Calcutta High Court reaffirmed its commitment to uphold recruitment norms that align with both procedural fairness and substantive justice. The decision provides clarity to recruiting bodies and aspirants alike: where vacancies are categorised into clear and anticipated pools, separate roster application is legally valid, provided proper notice is given and the scheme is bona fide.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.