Debjani Dutta v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

01.12.2025 Court No.18 AGM

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 27022 of 2025 Debjani Dutta -versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Anjan Bhattacharya.

Mr. Manoranjan Jana.

Ms. Anita Shaw.

Ms. Seema Thakur.

Mr. Radhasham Maiti.

...For the petitioner Mr. Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay, Sr. SC Mr. Sandip Das Gupta.

Ms. Mahima Chobera.

Mr. Niket Ojha.

... For the State Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Sr. Advocate Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya Mr. Arka Kumar Nag Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh Ms. P. Pandopadhyay ... For the WBCSSC Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharya.

Mr. Bibek Dutta.

... For the WBBSE.

1.

The petitioner participated in the second SLST (AT) 2025 recruitment process disclosing herself to be a member of the General Category. She claims reservation benefit meant for OBC-B category. 2.

The Commission published at least three notices giving opportunity to the candidates to update their caste details. Last of such opportunity was given

on 22nd September, 2025. The petitioner failed to avail the said opportunity for the reasons best known to her. 3.

After publication of the interview list, the petitioner seeks direction upon the Commission to treat her as OBC-B category candidate.

4.

Such prayer of the petitioner is opposed by the Commission. It has been submitted that the Commission has already treated the petitioner as a General Category candidate as per her disclosure in the application form.

5.

Upon hearing the parties it appears that the petitioner disclosed to be a member of the General Category. Had the petitioner applied in response to the notices published by the Commission for updating the caste details, her prayer for updating her caste category could have been redressed by the Commission. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner approached the Commission for upgrading her caste category within the stipulated time period or even thereafter.

6.

In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the instant case at such a delayed point of time.

7.

The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

8.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.

(Amrita Sinha, J.)