The West Bengal Public Service Commission issued Advertisement No. 12 of 2022 inviting applications for the post of Keeper at the State Archaeological Museum. Around fifty candidates responded to the notice. The Commission subsequently called thirty‑nine applicants for an interview without conducting any screening test or preparing an objective merit list, despite the advertisement mentioning that model answers would be published if a screening test were held.
Petitioners’ Allegations
Dr. Banani Bhattacharyya and another unsuccessful candidate filed a writ petition challenging the selection process. They submitted that the Commission failed to disclose the interview marks awarded to each candidate, the evaluation criteria applied by the Interview Board, and the basis on which the recommended candidate was chosen. The petitioners contended that, despite possessing higher academic qualifications and longer relevant experience, they were overlooked in favour of the selected candidate.
Commission’s Defence
The West Bengal Public Service Commission defended the recruitment, asserting that the proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with the West Bengal Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 1982. It argued that the three‑member Interview Board had found the selected candidate to be the most suitable and that the decision was based on a unanimous assessment of the interviewees’ performance.
Court’s Examination of Rule 5(e)
Justice Krishna Rao examined the original records and found that the Commission had not produced any document showing how the Interview Board arrived at its decision. The Court noted that Rule 5(e) of the Rules of Procedure, 1982 envisages two possible courses: either the Board reaches a unanimous decision on a candidate’s suitability or ranking, or, in the absence of unanimity, the final score is determined by taking the mathematical average of the individual marks awarded by each member.
The Court rejected the Commission’s explanation that identical marks were awarded after deliberations among the Board members, observing that Rule 5(e) does not contemplate awarding marks on the basis of the Board’s deliberation. It held that the Board must first attempt to achieve unanimity; only if that is impossible should the average of the individual marks be computed.
Justice Rao further observed that the record contained no indication of how the members had reached their conclusion or what basis underpinned the said decision.
Shortlisting Irregularities
The Court also found that the Commission had not followed the shortlisting procedure contemplated in the advertisement. Although around fifty candidates had applied, only thirty‑nine were called for interview. No screening test was administered, no objective shortlisting criteria were applied, and no merit list was prepared. The advertisement had stated that model answers would be published if a screening test were conducted, but no such exercise was undertaken.
Maintainability of the Writ Petition
The Commission objected that the petition should have been filed before the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal. The Court rejected this objection, accepting the petitioners’ submission that the Tribunal was non‑functional due to the absence of members. Consequently, the Court held that the writ petition was maintainable.
Relief Sought and Denied
The petitioners additionally sought a direction to appoint one of them, asserting that she had secured seventy marks and stood first in the waiting list after the selected candidate. The Court declined this relief, reasoning that the entire recruitment process had been vitiated by the procedural lapses and could not be partially cured by merely substituting the selected candidate.
Operative Outcome
Accordingly, the Court quashed the recruitment process initiated under Advertisement No. 12 of 2022 and set aside the appointment of the selected candidate made on July 31, 2025. It directed the West Bengal Public Service Commission to commence a fresh recruitment process strictly in conformity with the Recruitment Rules and the West Bengal Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 1982. The Court further clarified that candidates who become overage owing to the delay shall be considered for age relaxation if they seek such benefit.