IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

(Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao

W.P.A. No. 22644 of 2025

Dr. Banani Bhattacharyya & Others

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty

Mr. Supratik Shyamal

Mr. Mehboob Ahmed

....For the petitioners.

Ms. Sudipa Banerjee

Ms. Manisha Paswan

Mr. K.M. Hossain

….For the State.

Mr. Arijit Bakshi

Mr. Arghya Chatterjee

Mr. Sukanta Ghosh

….For the respondent no. 2.

2

Ms. Shraboni Sarkar

Ms. Umme Habiba Khatun

….For P.S.C.

Ms. Shetparna Ray

….For the respondent no. 7.

Hearing Concluded On : 03.07.2026

Judgment Delivered On : 15.07.2026

Judgment Uploaded On : 15.07.2026

Krishna Rao, J:

1. Facts:

i. The West Bengal Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred

to as “WBPSC”) issued Advertisement No. 12/2022 dated 26

November, 2022, inviting applications for permanent recruitment

to a Post of Keeper under Unreserved Category (UR), State

Archaeological Museum, under the Directorate of Archaeology

and Museums, Department of Information and Cultural Affairs,

Government of West Bengal. The post carried Pay Level 14 under

the West Bengal Services (ROPA) Rules, 2019. The advertisement

prescribed the essential qualifications of a Post Graduate Degree

in Museology, Archaeology, Ancient Indian History and Culture,

Islamic History and Culture, or Classical Languages with

specialization in Archaeology, together with a minimum of three

years' experience in a reputed Museum or a comparable

3

Institution. Certain desirable qualifications, including training in

Museology, conservation and preservation of museum objects,

and publications in the relevant field, were also specified.

ii. The petitioners, namely, Dr. Banani Bhattacharyya and Dr.

Arabinda Singha Roy, applied for the said post pursuant to

Advertisement No. 12/2022. They claim to possess the prescribed

educational qualifications and professional experience, including

higher academic qualifications such as Ph.D. degrees and

experience in the field of archaeology and museology. Supporting

documents relating to their qualifications and experience were

annexed to the writ petition.

iii. On 23 June, 2025, WBPSC issued Notification No. 315-P.S.C.

(Selection)/1S-06/2022 publishing a list of 39 candidates who

were found eligible to appear for the interview for the single

vacancy of Keeper, State Archaeological Museum.

iv. Interviews were conducted by the Commission and, thereafter, by

Notification No. 378-P.S.C. (Selection)/15-06/2022 dated 31

July, 2025, the Commission recommended Sayantan Mukherjee,

the respondent no. 7 for appointment to the solitary unreserved

post of Keeper, State Archaeological Museum. The petitioners

were not selected.

4

v. After publication of the recommendation, the petitioners sought

information regarding the selection process. According to them,

the Commission did not disclose the interview marks awarded to

candidates, the evaluation matrix adopted by the Selection

Committee, the experience verification reports, or any ranked

merit list indicating the basis on which the recommended

candidate had been selected. One of the petitioners also

submitted application under the Right to Information Act, 2005

seeking information relating to the recruitment process.

vi. The petitioners further questioned the recruitment process on the

ground that although the advertisement contemplated

consideration of higher qualifications and permitted short listing

on objective criteria, no category-wise cut-off marks or screening

benchmarks were disclosed. According to the petitioners, 39

candidates were called for interview against a single vacancy, and

they contended that the selection process lacked transparency in

the absence of disclosed evaluation criteria. They also asserted

that candidates possessing higher academic qualifications,

including Ph.D. degrees in relevant disciplines, were not accorded

due weightage in the final recommendation. The petitioners

further questioned whether the recommended candidate satisfied

the prescribed qualifications and minimum experience

contemplated by the advertisement.

5

vii. The respondent Commission denied the allegations of

arbitrariness and lack of transparency. The respondents stated

that WBPSC, being a constitutional body, had conducted the

recruitment strictly in accordance with the applicable

recruitment rules and the West Bengal Public Service

Commission Rules of Procedure, 1982. It is specifically asserted

that the Commission had recommended the most suitable

candidate after due verification of the eligibility, qualifications,

and experience of the selected candidate.

viii. The respondents also raised preliminary objections to the

maintainability of the writ petition. They contended that disputes

relating to recruitment to civil posts under the State fall within

the original jurisdiction of the West Bengal State Administrative

Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and

further contended that the writ petition was barred by limitation

as the recruitment process had already concluded before the

institution of the present proceedings.

2. Petitioners’ Argument:

i. The petitioners fulfil the prescribed eligibility criteria and possess

superior qualifications. The petitioners submit that each of them

satisfied the essential qualifications prescribed under

Advertisement No. 12/2022, including the required educational

qualifications and experience. They further contended that they

6

possess higher academic credentials, research qualifications, and

substantial professional experience relevant to the post of Keeper,

which were not accorded due weight during the selection process.

ii. The selection process lacked transparency and fairness. It is

argued that the Commission failed to disclose the interview

marks, evaluation matrix, comparative assessment, experience

verification reports, and ranked merit list. According to the

petitioners, such non-disclosure renders the selection process

opaque and arbitrary and deprives unsuccessful candidates of

the opportunity to understand the basis of the recommendation.

iii. The recruitment process was conducted contrary to the

applicable Rules of Procedure. The petitioners rely upon the

records produced before the Court and contend that the West

Bengal Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 1982 were

not properly followed. They further submit that the interview

records disclose only the final aggregate marks awarded to the

selected candidate and do not contain the individual assessment

made by the members of the Interview Board, thereby raising

doubts regarding compliance with the prescribed procedure.

iv. Relevant merit and experience were ignored. The petitioners

argue that despite possessing extensive experience in

archaeology, museums, teaching, research and publications, the

Commission failed to give due consideration to these factors.

7

According to them, the selection was made without properly

evaluating the comparative merit of the candidates.

v. The recommendation of Respondent No. 7 is arbitrary and

contrary to the advertisement. The petitioners contend that the

recommendation dated 31 July, 2025 in favour of Respondent

No. 7 is contrary to the eligibility conditions and the object of

Advertisement No. 12/2022. They, therefore, seek quashing of

the recommendation and consequential directions for selection of

the petitioner no. 1 in accordance with law.

3. Respondents' Arguments:

i. The recruitment process was conducted strictly in accordance

with law. The Commission submits that it is a constitutional

recruiting body entrusted with selecting the most suitable

candidates for public employment. It contends that the

recruitment was conducted strictly in accordance with

Advertisement No. 12/2022 and the West Bengal Public Service

Commission Rules of Procedure, 1982.

ii. The Interview Board followed Rule 5(e) of the Rules of Procedure,

1982. The Commission states that interviews were conducted by

a three-member Interview Board. As the members reached a

unanimous decision regarding the suitability and ranking of

8

candidates, the average marks awarded by the members

constituted the final assessment in accordance with Rule 5(e).

iii. The selected candidate was found to be the most suitable

candidate. The Commission maintains that Respondent No. 7

was selected after due assessment and was recommended as the

best suitable candidate. It denies any allegation of illegality,

arbitrariness or procedural irregularity in the selection process

and seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

4. Private Respondent’s (Respondent No. 7) Arguments :

i. The writ petition is not maintainable. Respondent No. 7 submits

that the petitioners voluntarily participated in the recruitment

process with full knowledge of the selection criteria and cannot

challenge the process after being unsuccessful. The principle that

a candidate who participates in a selection process cannot

subsequently question it is relied upon in support of this

contention.

ii. Academic superiority alone does not confer a right to selection. It

is contended that the advertisement clearly stipulated that the

final recommendation would be based on interview performance.

Therefore, merely possessing superior academic qualifications

does not entitle the petitioners to appointment or establish that

they were more meritorious than the Respondent No. 7.

9

iii. The assessment of the Interview Board is not ordinarily amenable

to judicial review. The Respondent No. 7 submits that the

evaluation made by a duly constituted Interview Board is based

on expert assessment and subjective satisfaction, which should

not ordinarily be interfered with by the Court in exercise of its

writ jurisdiction unless mala fides or procedural illegality are

established.

iv. The averaging of interview marks was lawful. It is submitted that

the average marking method reflected the consensus of the

Interview Board and was uniformly applied to all candidates.

Accordingly, the recommendation of Respondent No. 7 cannot be

said to suffer from arbitrariness or discrimination.

5. Decision with reasons:

a. The method of recruitment to the post of Keeper, State

Archaeological Museum is as follows:

“A. Method of recruitment:

(i) By direct recruitment, departmental

candidates having requisite qualifications, may

also apply,

Or

(ii) By transfer from Registering Officers in the

directorate of Archaeology, West Bengal,

Or

(iii) By deputation from officers in the posts

having comparable scale of pay in the

Archaeological Survey of India or Indian Museum or

National Museum or any other State Museum

10

provided they possess the essential qualification

for direct recruitment.

In all cases the Public Service Commission,

West Bengal will have to be consulted.”

b. In the present case, the method of recruitment is direct

recruitment and qualification for direct recruitment is as

follows:

“B. Qualifications for direct recruitment:

(a) Essential:

(i) A Post-Graduate Degree of a recognised

University in Museology or Archaeology or

Ancient Indian History and Culture or Islamic

History and Culture or any Classical

Languages with specialisation in any branch

of Archaeology;

(ii) At lease 3 (three) years experience in a

reputed Museum or a comparable Institution.

(b) Desirable:

(i) Training in Museology from a recognised

Museum or Institution:

(ii) Training in conservation and preservation of

Museum objects from a recognised institution

or museum, publication in Art, Archaeology

and Museology.”

c. Admittedly, no written examination was conducted. The

authorities have decided to fill up the vacant post of Keeper,

only by way of interview process. For conducting interview three

member’s Board was constituted. The full marks for the

interview were 100 and qualifying mark was 40. All together 39

candidates were selected to participate in the interview process.

11

As per the mark sheet submitted by the Interview Board, the

Commission has selected the private respondent no. 7 to be

appointed as Keeper as he has obtained 73 marks. Name of five

candidates were kept in the panel for future vacancies. The

name of the petitioner is at no.1 in the waiting list as the

petitioner obtained 70 marks in the interview.

d. This Court has called for the record of the interview process of

the said post. On production of original record along with mark

sheet of the Interview Board and on perusal of mark sheet of the

Interview Board, it was found that all three members have given

similar marks in their individual mark sheet but have not

produced the marks provided by each of the members separately

during interview.

e. When this Court has called for records of the marks provided by

each of the members in the interview to each candidate, the

respondents have submitted a report which reads as follows:

“In pursuance of the order dt. 26.02.2026 of

the Hon’ble High Court, it may be stated here that

all those mark sheets prepared and submitted

separately by the Members of the interview board

have already been produced before the Hon’ble

High Court in sealed cover on 26.02.2026. Other

than those mark sheets, no such individual score

sheets or assessment sheets lies with the

Commission to submit before the Hon’ble Court.

In fact, those marks have been awarded by

the Members of the interview board on the basis of

their deliberation and unanimous decision on the

performance of the interviewees. Hence, same

marks are awarded in favour of individual marks

12

sheets. If the Members of an Interview Board

comprising of two or more Members fail to arrive at

a unanimous decision regarding the suitability of a

candidate, the matter should be decided by taking

the average of the marks given by the Members.”

f. The West Bengal Public Service Commission relied upon Rule

5(e) of the Rules of Procedure, 1982 and submits that those

marks have been awarded by the members of the interview

board on the basis of their deliberation and unanimous decision

on the performance of the interviewees. Rule 5 reads as follows:

“5. Where recruitment to a service or post is to

be made by selection, the Commission shall subject

to the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Article 320 of

the Constitution of India and the West Bengal

Public Service Commission (Exemption from

Consultation) Regulations, 1955-

(i) advise the appointing authority with regard

to the rules regulating the qualifications of

candidates;

(ii) announce the number of vacancies to be

filled and invite applications;

(iii) consider all applications received and

interview a sufficient number of eligible

candidates;

(iv) constitute Interview Boards

(a) with one or more Members of the

Commission or a nominee of the Chairman,

Note: Chairman/Member will preside in all

interview Boards whenever he is associated;

when two or more Member are associated, the

senior most Member will preside. In other boards

constituted without a Member, the nominee of

the Chairman shall preside.

(b) The Board will, if necessary, be assisted by one

or more specialists or experts of standing, not

connected with the Department/Directorate

concerned, chosen by the Commission.

13

(c) In the said Interview Board the Commission

may request an officer of appropriate rank

ordinarily not below the rank of Joint Secretary

or Head or Additional Head of the Directorate

nominated by Government to represent the

Department/Directorate for which recruitment

is made.

(d) The proceedings of the Board shall not be

invalidated by reason of absence of any

Member and/or Expert/ Departmental

representatives.

(e) Attempts should be made to come to a

unanimous decision regarding the suitability or

ranking of the candidates selected. If the

Members of an Interview Board (of two or more

Members) fail to arrive at a unanimous decision

regarding the suitability or ranking of a

candidate, the matter should be decided by

taking the average of the marks given by the

Members. If, however, there is a wide difference

of marks it should be referred to the Chairman

of the Commission.

(f) Where a large number of applications is

received as a result of advertisement, the

Commission may, for the purpose of short-

listing, hold a preliminary examination, even

though such examination is not prescribed in

the recruitment rules or mentioned in the

advertisement. The Commission may,

thereafter, call for interview a sufficient number

of candidates in order of merit.

(g) The Commission may determine the qualifying

standards and also, if necessary, relaxed

standard for Scheduled Caste/Schedules Tribe

candidates in the written/practical screening

test and interview and the relative weightage to

be given for academic career and experience for

preparing final order of merit.

(h) In case an open advertisement fails or is likely

to fail to attract suitable candidates for a post,

the duties and responsibilities of which

demand a person of high qualifications and

14

eminence, the Commission may, in consultation

with the Government undertake negotiations

with such persons as are not likely to apply in

response to open advertisement.

(i) Forward to the appointment authority the

names and other necessary details of the

candidates whom it considers most suitable for

appointment, arranged in order of preference;

provided that the number of candidates

recommended shall not exceed the number of

vacancies to be filled.”

g. The respondents have made out a case that members of the

Board on deliberation taken a decision on the performance of

the interviewees. This Court has called for entire file of the

selection process but decision of the Interview Board is not

available. Rule 5(e) is not for awarding marks by the members of

Interview Board on their deliberation on the performance of the

interviewees. As per said Rule, the interview panel must first try

to reach a complete agreement on a candidate’s suitability or

rank. If they cannot unanimously agree, the final decision or

ranking will be determined by calculating the mathematical

average of the individual scores awarded by each board member.

All panel members discuss the candidate and must agree 100%

on their final ranking or whether they are suitable. This

encourages through deliberation and ensures the Board is

completely aligned on decisions. If panel members have

conflicting view and cannot agree on a single outcome, the

unanimous requirement is dropped. The Board determines the

15

final score by adding up all the individual marks and dividing by

the number of Board members. In the present case, there is

nothing on record how the members have come to such decision

and what is the basis of the said decision.

h. Rule 5(f) provides that where a large number of applications are

received as a result of advertisement, the Commission may, for

the purpose of short listing, hold a preliminary examination,

even though such examination is not prescribed in the

recruitment rules or mentioned in the advertisement. The

Commission may thereafter, call for interview a sufficient

number of candidates in order of merit. In the present case,

there is no requirement of written examination in the

recruitment rule. Clause 4 of the of the Advertisement No.

12/2022, reads as follows:

“4. The prescribed qualifications are the bare

minimum and mere possession of the same does

not entitle applicants to be called for the interview.

Where the number of applications received in

response to the advertisement is large and it is not

conveniently possible for the Commission to

interview all the applicants, the Commission may

restrict the number of candidates to be called for

interview to a reasonable limit on the basis of

either higher qualifications/ higher marks/ grade

obtained in the essential qualifications or

experience in relevant field higher than the

minimum prescribed in the advertisement or on the

basis of a Screening Test.

Note I: Commission has fixed the following

qualifying marks in Interview and candidates

unable to secure such qualifying marks would not

be considered for the post, irrespective of their

16

academic qualification and/or marks obtained in

Screening Test.

Category of vacancies Qualifying Marks

UR 40%

Note II: Marks obtained in Screening Test will

not be considered for preparation of Merit List for

recommendation. Marks obtained in the Screening

Test will only be considered for selection for

candidates for interview for the purpose of

restricting the number of candidates to be called for

interview to a reasonable limit.

Note III: After display of Model Answers (MCQ

Type) in the PSC website, objections by the

candidates need to be filed strictly within the

specific time limit, beyond which no objections shall

be entertained.”

i. As per Clause 4 of the advertisement if number of application is

large and it is not conveniently possible to the Commission to

interview all applicants, the Commission may restrict the

number of candidate to call for interview to a reasonable limit on

the basis of either higher qualifications/ higher marks/ grade

obtained in the essential qualifications or experience in relevant

field higher than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement

or on the basis of marks obtained in screening test.

Note - II of the advertisement provides that marks

obtained in screening test will only be considered for selection of

candidates for interview for the purpose of restricting the

number of candidates to be called for interview to a reasonable

limit.

17

All together 50 candidates were applied for the said post.

On scrutiny of documents, the Public Service Commission has

allowed only 39 candidates to participate in the recruitment

process but no screening test was conducted, no marks were

awarded and no merit list was prepared.

j. In Note–III of the Advertisement provides that the Public Service

Commission will display the Model Answer (MCQ Type) in the

PSC website, objections by the candidates need to be filed

strictly within time limit, beyond which no objections shall be

entertained but the Public Service Commission has not

displayed any Model Answer (MCQ Type) and there is nothing on

record to that effect.

k. This Court finds that the Public Service commission has not

followed the terms and conditions of the advertisement, West

Bengal Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 1982 and

the Board members have not conducted the interview in fair

manner.

l. The respondents have raised the point of maintainability of the

writ application and the petitioner instead of filing an

application before the State Administrative Tribunal has filed

the instant writ petition. It is the specific case of the petitioners

that the petitioners have filed Original Application before the

West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal but the Tribunal is

18

not functioning due to none availability of members of the

Tribunal. The petitioners have relied upon the judgment in the

case of Md. Masidul Islam Vs. The State of West Bengal and

Others passed in WPA No. 27327 of 2025 dated 13

th January

2026 and held that the Tribunal is not functioning, writ petition

is found to be maintainable before this Court.

m. The contention of the petitioners that if the appointment of the

respondent no.7 is illegal, direction be given to the Public

Service Commission to appoint the petitioner no. 1 as the

petitioner no. 1 has obtained 70 marks and is in serial no.1 in

the waiting list. In support of his submissions, has relied upon

the judgment in the case of Girjesh Shrivastava and Others

vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in (2010)

10 SCC 707. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held

that :

“26. From these facts it can be concluded that

the alleged participation of near relatives in the

selection process was not such a factor as to vitiate

the entire selection process. Even if there were

some illegal beneficiaries from the selection

process, they should have been weeded out

instead of striking down the entire selection

process.”

The facts of the case relied by the petitioners is

distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In the present

case, this Court finds that the Public Service Commission has

not conducted the recruitment process in fair manner and in

19

accordance with the advertisement. In the case relied by the

petitioners, the relative of the one of the selected candidate was

the member of the selection process.

6. In view of the above, the recruitment process initiated vide

Advertisement No. 12 of 2022 for the post of Keeper, State

Archaeological Museum is set aside and quashed. Accordingly, the

appointment of the respondent no.7 to the post of Keeper, State

Archaeological Museum dated 31

st

July, 2025, is also set aside and

quashed.

7. The respondent authorities are directed to initiate a fresh recruitment

process to fill up the vacant post of Keeper, State Archaeological

Museum immediately in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and

West Bengal Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, 1982. If

the candidates who have appeared in the recruitment process in terms

of the Advertisement 12 of 2022 become over age, the Public Service

Commission shall consider for relaxation of their age if they made any

request for relaxation of their age.

8. WPA No. 22644 of 2025 is allowed.

Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of a server copy of the

Judgment placed on the official website of the Court.

20

Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for,

be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.

(Krishna Rao, J.)

Later:

Original file as well as original mark sheets be returned to the

Learned Counsel appearing for the PSC.

(Krishna Rao, J.)