IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

BEFORE : HON’BLE JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA

W.P.A. 27328 of 2025

SHAYAN SACHIN BASU

VS.

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shuvro Prakash Lahiri, Advocate

Mr. Rajesh Naskar, Advocate

Mr. Ranit Mukherjee, Advocate

Mr. Ankan Mondal, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Vivekananda Bose, Advocate

Ms. Mousumi Banerjee, Advocate

For the PSC : Ms. Piyali Sengupta, Advocate

Mr. Victor Chatterjee, Advocate

Mr. Pramitava Nath, Advocate

Ms. Shreya Bhattacharjee, Advocate

For the High Court

Administration : Mr. Debashis Banerjee, Advocate

Mr. Rakesh Jana, Advocate

Hearing concluded on : 12

th

May, 2026

Judgment on : 20

th

May, 2026

Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.:

1. Petitioner is an eligible candidate for offering his candidature in West

Bengal Judicial Service Examination (for short ‘WBJS Examination’), 2023

and 2024 presented this writ petition, inter alia, praying for direction to

incorporate three years practice as an advocate being an eligibility criterion

for being considered to be appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in West

2

Bengal Judicial Service. According to petitioner, incorporation of eligibility

criterion of having practice of three years or more as an advocate is required

in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 20

th

May, 2025 passed

in All India Judges Association & Others vs. Union of India & Others.

2. Mr. Shuvro Prakash Lahiri, learned advocate representing the petitioner

submits that for WBJS Examination, 2023 and WBJS Examination, 2024,

first an indicative advertisement no. 19/2023 dated 28

th

December, 2023

and another advertisement being no. 09/2024 dated 7

th

December, 2024

were issued by the concerned authority of Public Service Commission, West

Bengal (for short ‘Commission’). Final advertisements were issued for WBJS

Examination 2023 and 2024 on 13

th

August, 2025 by the Commission being

advertisement nos. 19/2023 and 09/2024 respectively.

3. It was pointed out on behalf of petitioner that one of the requisite

qualifications for offering candidature in WBJS Examinations 2023 and

2024 is his/her enrolment as an advocate in the roll of Bar Council of any

State or Union Territory in India on the date of advertisement but it is not

stipulated therein that the candidate is required to have practiced three

years or more as an advocate which is contrary to the judgment of the

Supreme Court delivered in All India Judges Association (supra). In this

regard, reliance is placed on paragraphs 89(vii), 89(viii), 89(ix) and 89(x) of

All India Judges Association (supra). It was submitted absence of

eligibility criterion of minimum three years practice as an advocate in the

advertisements dated 13

th

August, 2025 for holding WBJS Examinations

3

2023 and 2024 vitiated the process requiring the concerned respondent

authorities to initiate fresh selection process by publishing advertisements

taking note of the observations as contained in All India Judges

Association (supra).

4. It was also argued that indicative advertisements dated 28

th

December,

2023 for WBJS Examination, 2023 and subsequent advertisement dated 7

th

December, 2024 for holding WBJS Examination, 2024 are not the formal

advertisements marking initiation of selection process for filling up the post

of Civil Judge (Junior Division). According to petitioner, without disclosing

requisite eligibility criteria if advertisements are made that may not be

treated as formal advertisements requiring the recruiting authority to

publish detailed advertisement stipulating eligibility criteria which may be

construed as commencement of selection process. In the present case

advertisements dated 13

th

August, 2025 for both the selection processes i.e.

WBJS Examination, 2023 and WBJS Examination, 2024 need to be

regarded as formal advertisements marking commencement of selection

process.

5. It was also contended in Sikkim and Telangana first rules relating to

judicial service examination were amended and then selection process

commenced. In State of West Bengal it was argued that in terms of the

judgment in All India Judges Association (supra) rules relating to judicial

examination for filling up the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) were

required to be amended prior to initiation of selection process.

4

6. According to the petitioner in All India Judges Association (supra)

Supreme Court in paragraph 89(ix) directed incorporation of minimum

years of practice as an advocate being one of the eligibility criteria from the

next recruitment process; it is necessary to incorporate three years practice

as an advocate an eligibility criterion in the advertisements before initiating

selection process i.e. WBJS Examination, 2023 and WBJS Examination,

2024.

7. On the proposition that publication of advertisement prior to selection

process needs to be regarded as commencement of selection process

following judgments were relied upon:-

(i) (2014) 14 SCC 50 (Renu & Ors. vs. District and Sessions Judge,

Tis Hazari & Anr.)

(ii) 2025 SCC OnLine SC 280 (Amrit Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand &

Ors.)

(iii) AIR OnLine 1990 SC 20 (A.P. Public Service Commission,

Hyderabad vs. B. Sarat Chandra)

(iv) (2025) 2 SCC 1 (Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. vs. Rajasthan High

Court & Ors.)

8. Mr. Vivekananda Bose, learned advocate representing the state

respondents submitted that for filling up the post of Civil Judge (Junior

Division) in the West Bengal Judicial Service for the year 2023 & 2024

vacancies were notified by the High Court prior to judgment delivered by the

Supreme Court in All India Judges Association (supra). Vacancies were

notified on 19

th

October, 2023 for WBJS Examination, 2023 and for WBJS

5

Examination, 2024, notification was issued on 5

th

March, 2025 by the High

Court Administration which was addressed to the Principal Secretary to the

Government of West Bengal, Judicial Department whereas judgment in All

India Judges Association (supra) was delivered on 20

th

May, 2025. In this

regard, reliance is placed on paragraph 89 (ix) of All India Judges

Association (supra) wherein it was held incorporation of eligibility criteria of

minimum years of practice shall not be applicable in cases where the

concerned High Court already initiated the selection process for the post of

Civil Judge (Junior Division) prior to the date of judgment and shall be

applicable only from the next recruitment process.

9. It was contended as the direction was upon the High Court relating to

initiation of selection process for filling up the post of Civil Judge (Junior

Division) by taking necessary steps and in the present case prior to the date

of judgment in All India Judges Association (supra) vacancies were

notified by the High Court, respondent authorities are required to take steps

in terms of directions of the Supreme Court as contained in the judgment

dated 20

th

May, 2025 from the selection process of 2025 by amending rules.

10. Submissions were made to distinguish ratio of Tej Prakash Pathak

(supra) in the backdrop of Article 229 and Article 234 of the Constitution;

in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) Supreme Court was considering

appointments in the post of Translators in Rajasthan High Court which

comes under the ambit of Article 229 where appointing authority is the

Chief Justice of the High Court whereas in the present case appointments in

6

the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) comes under the purview of Article

234 where appointing authority is Governor of the State in accordance with

rules which apply in such recruitment after consultation with the State

Public Service Commission and with the High Court. According to state

respondents, observation made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 65.1 of

Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) is in the context of different recruitment rules

and the recruitment process as contemplated under Article 229 of the

Constitution which may not apply in the present case.

11. It was argued by Mr. Debashis Banerjee, learned advocate representing

the High Court Administration that posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) are

filled up in terms of Rule 8 of the West Bengal Judicial (Conditions of

Service) Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Rules of 2004’). It

was also submitted that High Court Administration is required to identify

nature of vacancies and number of vacancies to be filled up in a particular

year and same to be notified to the Judicial Department, Government of

West Bengal. Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal in its turn is

required to forward notification of vacancies issued by the High Court to the

Commission for conducting examination upon taking necessary steps. In

this regard, reliance was placed on the judgment reported in (2008) 17 SCC

703 (Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) vs. Uttar Pradesh Public Service

Commission & Others). Method of recruitment in the post of subordinate

judicial service in different States including State of West Bengal was

considered by the Supreme Court and in paragraph 7D in a tabular form it

7

was specified the steps which are required to be taken for filling up the post

of Civil Judge (Junior Division) by direct recruitment. According to High

Court Administration, in said paragraph 7D of Malik Mazhar Sultan (3)

(supra) it is indicated that High Court is required to notify vacancies for

each year which is commencement of selection process for filling up the post

of Civil Judge (Junior Division). As per said Rules of 2004 and the

observations made by the Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3)

(supra) vacancies are required to be notified to the Judicial Department,

Government of West Bengal and thereafter on forwarding such notification

of vacancies commission to take steps by issuing advertisement.

12. Submissions were also made on behalf of commission based on

advertisements published at two stages. First for WBJS Examination 2023

indicative advertisement was issued on 28

th

December, 2023 and for WBJS

Examination 2024 indicative advertisement was issued on 7

th

December,

2024 and subsequently two separate advertisements were made on 13

th

August, 2025 for WBJS Examination 2023 and WBJS Examination 2024 for

filling up the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) disclosing different

aspects of recruitment procedure. It was contended on behalf of

Commission that advertisements dated 13

th

August, 2025 may not be read

in isolation without considering first indicative advertisements dated 28

th

December, 2023 and 7

th

December, 2024. According to Commission, date of

advertisement may be reckoned with date of indicative advertisements and

subsequent advertisements dated 13

th

August, 2025 merely elaborated

8

different aspects of method of recruitment for instance prescribed age limit

of candidate is to be reckoned with date of indicative advertisements not the

date of subsequent advertisements published on 13

th

August, 2025 in

connection with both the selection processes namely, WBJS Examination,

2023 and WBJS Examination, 2024.

13. Furthermore, there was clarification as published on 23

rd

August, 2025

by concerned authority of Commission clarifying qualification of candidates

and date of advertisement were to be reckoned with date of indicative

advertisements dated 28

th

December, 2023 and 7

th

December, 2024. It was

also clarified in the aforesaid clarification dated 23

rd

August, 2025 by the

Commission that date of enrolment as an advocate on the roll of Bar

Council of any State or Union Territory in India was to be reckoned with the

dates of indicative advertisements dated 28

th

December, 2023 for WBJS

Examination, 2023 and 7

th

December, 2024 for WBJS Examination, 2024.

Therefore, it was submitted on behalf of Commission indicative

advertisements dated 28

th

December, 2023 and 7

th

December, 2024 need

consideration in arriving at conclusion regarding commencement of

selection process for filling up the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) for

the year 2023 & 2024.

14. It was also pointed out in reference to two letters dated 19

th

October,

2023 for WBJS Examination, 2023 and another letter dated 5

th

March, 2025

for WBJS Examination, 2024 issued by the High Court Administration to

the Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal that in both cases

9

vacancies were first reported vide letters dated 27

th

June, 2023 and 19

th

April, 2024 which stood modified by subsequent letters dated 19

th

October,

2023 and 5

th

March, 2025 respectively. Stand was also taken on behalf of

Commission that ball was set in motion when on behalf of High Court

Administration vacancies were notified by aforesaid letters which were

addressed to Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal and

subsequently same were received by the Commission.

15. In consideration of the case made out on behalf of petitioner and taking

note of the submissions made on behalf of parties it is found that selection

process for filling up the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) for the year

2023 & 2024 was initiated by the High Court Administration on notifying

vacancies of the respective years to the Judicial Department, Government of

West Bengal. Such exercise on the part of High Court Administration is

necessary in terms of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Malik

Mazhar Sultan (3) (supra). On receipt of vacancy notifications Commission

took steps first by issuing indicative advertisements dated 28

th

December,

2023 for WBJS Examination, 2023 and on 7

th

December, 2024 for WBJS

Examination, 2024. While issuing such indicative advertisements it was

stated therein that detailed information regarding commencement and

closing date for online applications, age limit, qualifications, scale of pay,

fees to be paid through online and offline mode, scheme and syllabus of the

examination would be available in the Commission’s website shortly. Details

of websites were also indicated in those two indicative advertisements.

10

Subsequently advertisements were made on 13

th

August, 2025 disclosing

details of method of recruitment, eligibility criteria of candidates, time

period for submitting application as per indicative advertisements.

Thereafter, a clarification was issued on 23

rd

August, 2025 stating therein

that qualification of candidate and date of advertisement were to be

reckoned with date of indicative advertisements i.e. 28

th

December, 2023

and 7

th

December, 2024.

16. In aforesaid backdrop having considered the case made out on behalf of

petitioner this court is tasked to decide whether selection process for filling

up the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) for the year 2023 & 2024

commenced with publication of advertisements on 13

th

August, 2025 or not.

17. Reliance was placed on behalf of petitioner on B. Sarat Chandra (supra);

observations made in B. Sarat Chandra (supra) were considered by a later

judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2011) 3 SCC 267 (Pawan

Pratap Singh & Others vs. Reevan Singh & Others) . In paragraph 7 of B.

Sarat Chandra (supra) it was observed in reference to the interpretation

attributed by the Tribunal in the context of relevant selection process the

process of selection begins with issuance of advertisement and ends with

preparation of select list for appointment. Same was taken into

consideration in Pawan Pratap Singh (supra) in the context of

determination of seniority between two groups of direct recruits. In

paragraph 45(i) of Pawan Pratap Singh (supra) it was held the effective date

of selection has to be understood in the context of the service rules under

11

which the appointment is made. It may mean the date on which the process

of selection starts with the issuance of advertisement or factum of

preparation of select list, as the case may be. Therefore, in the present case

too method of selection is relevant consideration to trace the initiation of

selection process for recruiting in the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).

18. Paragraphs 89(vii), 89(viii), 89 (ix) and 89 (x) of All India Judges

Association (supra) are quoted below:-

“89. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we issue the following

directions:

xxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxx

(vii) All the High Courts and the State Governments in the country

shall amend the relevant service rules to the effect that candidates

desirous of appearing in the examination for the post of Civil Judge

(Junior Division) must have practiced for a minimum period of 3

years to be eligible for the said examination. To fulfill the said

requirement, the Rules shall mandate that the candidate produces a

certificate to that effect duly certified either by the Principal Judicial

Officer of that Court or by an advocate of that Court having a

minimum standing of 10 years duly endorsed by the Principal

Judicial Officer of such a District or a Principal Judicial Officer at

such a station. Insofar as the candidates who are practicing before

the High Courts or this Court, they shall be certified by an advocate

who has a minimum standing of 10 years duly endorsed by an

officer designated by that High Court or this Court. We further direct

that the experience of the candidates which they have gained while

working as Law Clerks with any of the Judges or Judicial Officers in

12

the country should also be considered while calculating their total

number of years of practice. The Rules shall also mandate that the

candidates who are appointed to the post of Civil Judge (Junior

Division) pursuant to their selection through the examination must

compulsorily undergo at least 1 year of training before presiding in a

Court;

(viii) It is directed that the number of years of practice completed by

a candidate desirous of appearing in the examination for the post of

Civil Judge (Junior Division) be calculated from the date of their

provisional enrolment/registration with the concerned State Bar

Council;

(ix) It is further directed that the said requirement of minimum years

of practice shall not be applicable in cases where the concerned

High Court has already initiated the selection process for the post of

Civil Judge (Junior Division) prior to the date of this judgment and

shall be applicable only from the next recruitment process; and

(x) All the amendments in terms of the aforesaid direction shall be

carried out by the High Courts within a period of three months from

the date of this judgment and the concerned State Governments

shall consider and approve the same within a further period of three

months.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

19. In paragraph 89(ix) it was observed by the Supreme Court that

requirement of minimum years of practice shall not be applicable in cases

where concerned High Court already initiated the selection process for the

post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) prior to the date of this judgment and

shall be applicable from the next recruitment process. Taking note of

method of recruitment as directed by the Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar

13

Sultan (3) (supra) High Court is required to forward notification of vacancy

on identifying number of vacancies and nature of vacancies to the Judicial

Department, Government of West Bengal and subsequently, Judicial

Department, Government of West Bengal is required to forward notification

of vacancy to the Commission. In the present case it was disclosed in the

affidavit affirmed on behalf of High Court Administration that for WBJS

Examination, 2023 vacancies were notified vide letter dated 19

th

October,

2023 of the Registrar General and for WBJS Examination, 2024 vacancies

were notified vide letter dated 5

th

March, 2025 of the Registrar General

whereas judgment was delivered in All India Judges Association (supra) on

20

th

May, 2025. Normally selection process is set in motion with issuance of

advertisement but method of selection process in the present case is a

relevant consideration when in paragraph 89(ix) of All India Judges

Association (supra) it was specifically held that where the concerned High

Court already initiated selection process for filling up the post of Civil Judge

(Junior Division) prior to the judgment dated 20

th

May, 2025 revised

eligibility criteria of minimum three years practice as an advocate shall be

applicable from the next recruitment process.

20. In terms of Article 234 of the Constitution appointments in the post of

Civil Judge (Junior Division) needs to be made by the Governor of the State

in accordance with rules made by the Governor after consultation with the

State Public Service Commission and with the High Court exercising

jurisdiction in relation to such State. In addition thereto Supreme Court in

14

paragraph 89(vii) of All India Judges Association (supra) directed all the

High Courts and State Governments shall amend the relevant service rules

to the effect that candidates desirous of appearing in the examination for

the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) must have practiced for a minimum

period of three years to be eligible for the said examination. Therefore,

before incorporation of eligibility criterion of having minimum three years

practice as an advocate for being considered to the post of Civil Judge

(Junior Division) recruitment rules require amendment. It is disclosed in the

affidavit affirmed on behalf of Commission that vide letter dated 21

st

November, 2025 modified draft recruitment rules in terms of the judgment

of All India Judges Association (supra) was forwarded to the Principal

Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Judicial Department. High Court

Administration as well as concerned State authorities are to finalize

amended recruitment rules regulating recruitment to the West Bengal

Judicial Service and suitable notification to be issued in this regard strictly

in terms of the directions as contained in judgment dated 20

th

May, 2025 of

the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association (supra) which would

enable the authorities to conduct recruitment to the post of Civil Judge

(Junior Division) in West Bengal Judicial Service by following the dicta of

Apex Court from the next selection process.

21. Reliance was placed on Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) on behalf of

petitioner. In paragraphs 65.2 and 65.3 of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) Five

Judge Bench of the Supreme Court taking note of the ratio in K. Manjusree

15

vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512 and State of

Haryana vs. Subhas Chander Marwaha reported in (1974) 3 SCC 220

reference was answered that application of ratio of above two judgments are

in two separate fields. Subhas Chander Marwaha (supra) deals with right of

appointment from select list whereas K. Manjusree (supra) deals with right

to be placed in select list. Much reliance was placed on paragraph 65.1 of

Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) wherein it was observed that recruitment

process commenced from issuance of advertisement calling for applications

and ends with filling up of vacancies and it was argued that 13

th

August,

2025 needs to be considered formal commencement of selection process for

recruiting Civil Judge (Junior Division) for the year 2023 & 2024. But

different issue invites attention of this court while deciding present writ

petition. In the context of relevant recruitment rules applicable for

appointment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in West Bengal Judicial Service

after number and nature of vacancies were intimated to Judicial

Department of Government of West Bengal for recruitment for the year 2023

& 2024 incorporation of eligibility criterion of three years legal practice in

said selection process as per dicta of All India Judges Association (supra)

is indispensable or not. Answer is found in judgment of All India Judges

Association (supra) in paragraph 89(ix) as quoted above. Initiation of

selection process by the High Court in terms of All India Judges

Association (supra) is forwarding of vacancies (number and nature) to the

State authorities taking note of manner of selection process. At the cost of

repetition reliance is placed on Pawan Pratap Singh (supra) wherein

16

Supreme Court placing reliance on B. Sarat Chandra (supra) held in

paragraph 45(i) that effective date of selection process has to be understood

in the context of service rules under which the appointment is made.

22. In Renu (supra) and Amrit Yadav (supra) Supreme Court laid emphasis

on the contents of advertisement for public appointment. It was held in

those judgments that advertisement to be published prior to public

appointment must disclose number of post available for selection and

recruitment, qualifications and other eligibility criteria for such post,

schedule of recruitment process and the rules under which the selection is

to be made. Requirement of including these aspects in the advertisement

prior to public appointment was reiterated in paragraph 19 of Amrit Yadav

(supra). On conjoint reading of indicative advertisements and subsequent

advertisements dated 13

th

August, 2025 for conducting WBJS Examination

2023 & 2024 it ought not to be deduced that the aforesaid advertisements

lack particulars which are required to be disclosed as per dicta of Renu

(supra) and Amrit Yadav (supra).

23. Petitioner is an eligible candidate who could have offered candidature

pursuant to advertisements for participating in WBJS Examination 2023 &

2024 but chose not to participate in selection process due to non-

incorporation of eligibility criterion of three years practice as an advocate

thereby prayed for direction to amend eligibility criteria before initiating

fresh selection process for the year 2023 & 2024. Court finds it apt to quote

paragraph 44 of three Judge Bench judgment of this court reported in 2019

17

SCC OnLine Cal 381 delivered on batch of matters first one being

Managing Committee, Kadamtala High Madrasah vs. State of West

Bengal & Ors.:-

“44. Law being fairly well-settled that even an eligible candidate,

who might have been found suitable by the selectors and thus

selected, has no vested right of appointment, the proposition seems

to me to be unsound that a candidate who wishes to take part in a

selection process and might have offered his candidature or even

taken part in such process without a final panel/merit list having

been prepared, could claim a better right (than candidates selected)

that the selection process must not only be taken forward but that

too in accordance with the rules in force on the date the process

commenced, notwithstanding that such rules may have been

amended or repealed during the continuance of such process. That a

candidate for a public post has a right to claim fair consideration of

his candidature admits of no doubt, but to enforce a right, if at all,

the minimum that is required of him is to show that he has been

empaneled/enlisted. However, so long the amendment that is

effected in the governing rules and is sought to be enforced soon

after the selection process has commenced or even in the midst

thereof does not impair his right of participation and also does not

impede a fair consideration of his candidature, it is difficult to

comprehend on what basis could a candidate for a public post claim

that the process must move forward without the amendments,

insofar as they are relevant, being enforced and to take the selection

process to its logical conclusion on the basis of the unamended

rules. If it were a case a repeal of the earlier rules by a new set of

rules, and initiation of the selection process based on the former not

being saved by the latter, the recruitment process itself has to be

aborted and commenced afresh in the tune with the new rules.”

18

24. Observations made by Justice Dipankar Datta in paragraph 44 while

concurring with the view expressed by Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty made

it amply clear that candidate not being empaneled and selected is not

authorized to claim selection process must move forward without the

amendments and to take the selection process to its logical conclusion on

the basis of unamended rules. In Managing Committee, Kadamtala High

Madrasah (supra) desirous candidates were seeking conclusion of selection

process in terms of unamended rules wherein it was observed in paragraph

44 that candidate does not possess right to claim completion of selection

process in terms of particular recruitment rules, at best candidate for public

post has right to claim fair consideration of his candidature in the event he

is empaneled/enlisted. Here instead of possessing requisite

qualification/eligibility criteria petitioner chose not to participate in the

selection process unless eligibility criteria is amended in terms of the

observations made by the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association

(supra), though it was made clear by the Supreme Court in paragraph

89(vii) that High Courts and State Governments shall first amend the

relevant service rules to the effect that candidates desirous of appearing in

the examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) must have

practiced for a minimum period of three years to be eligible for the said

examination. It was also held in paragraph 89(ix) that requirement of

minimum years of practice shall not be applicable in cases where concerned

High Court has already initiated the selection process for the post of Civil

19

Judge (Junior Division) prior to date of the judgment. In terms of the

observations made by the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association

(supra) service rules are required to be amended for incorporation of

eligibility criteria for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and in this

regard steps have been taken by the respondent authorities as disclosed in

the affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission. But when steps were taken

by the respondent authorities including High Court for initiating selection

process prior to 20

th

May, 2025 it was open to the petitioner to participate in

the selection process being an eligible candidate instead of seeking initiation

of fresh selection process on amending service rules; such claim of the

candidate was negated in Managing Committee, Kadamtala High

Madrasah (supra).

25. In aforesaid conspectus steps taken by the concerned respondent

authorities for conducting WBJS Examinations, 2023 & 2024 for recruiting

Civil Judge (Junior Division) are not interfered with and the writ petition is

dismissed. However respondent authorities are directed to conduct selection

process following the observations and directions contained in All India

Judges Association (supra) from the next year by incorporating requisite

eligibility criteria as per direction of the Supreme Court.

26. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the

parties, upon usual undertakings.

(SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J. )