Gul Afshan v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

30.03.2026 sdas WPA 757 of 2026 Gul Afshan Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Ali Ahsan Alamgir Ms. Rabia Khatoon Ms. Soma Mal Ms. June Modak Ms. Munni Barman .... for the petitioner Mr. Swapan Kumar Dutta, ld. GP Mr. Rajat Dutta .... for the State Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharaya Ms. Pramiti Bandopadhyay Mr. Arka Kumar Nag Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh ..... for the WBCSSC Mr. Kunal Ganguly ..... for the WBBSE

1. Let affidavit-of-service, as filed in Court, be kept on record.

2. The petitioner is a successful candidate in the second SLST examination held sometime in September, 2025. The petitioner's grievance is that she was unable to fill up the particulars under the OBC-B category and filled the same under the OBC-A category.

3. Mr. Alamgir, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the categorization was not

there at the initial stage and though the window for such categorization was subsequently made and opened to be edited between July and August, 2025, the petitioner was unable to edit and classify her categorization from OBC-A to OBC-B category.

4. The petitioner has presently filed this writ petition sometime in January, 2026, seeking inter alia, the portal be opened to enable the petitioner to edit her categorization and be considered under the OBC-B category.

5. Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned senior Advocate appearing for the Commission, submits that sufficient time was given to the petitioner and the persons, similarly situated as the petitioner, to edit their application forms in the online portal. In spite of such time being given, the petitioner was unable to edit the form and has applied under the category that she now seeks i.e. OBC-B category.

6. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. The decision reported in MAT 2115 of 2025 ( The West Bengal Central School Service Commission & Ors. Vs. Somnath Pramanik & Ors.) made in the facts and circumstances of that case and the portal had been opened for a period of 24 hours only, in view of the request made by

the Bench. In fact, that order pertained to only those candidates who had filed writ petitions by 2:30P.M. on the date of the order i.e. December 16, 2025. The said order cannot be and was indeed not made to be treated as a precedent as specifically entailed in the order itself.

7. I am also informed that the order in MAT 17 of 2026 passed by the second Division Bench opening the portal for a further period was carried in appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and has been stayed by the order dated March 16, 2026, a copy whereof has been handed up in Court and is kept on record.

8. The petitioner, meritorious as she may be, is a successful candidate and cannot be permitted to alter her position for her benefit, in the manner that she now seeks. This would open the flood gates for all such candidates.

9. The petitioner cannot be permitted to seek a modification of her application form on the alleged ground that she was unable to edit the form, even when sufficient time had been given to the candidates to edit their respective forms. This would create an administrative mayhem.

10. The petitioner has approached this Court at an extremely belated stage. Any further opportunity to the petitioner to edit her form would result in a

successful candidate in the category to which she seeks to edit, loosing out an opportunity of being allotted a seat, post counselling. This is also impermissible and would not subserve the cause of justice.

11. In view of the aforestated findings and observations, I do not find any reason to entertain the instant writ petition.

12. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

13. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

14. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking.

(Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)