08 2299..0077..22002266 Ct. No. 01 KCP RVW 370 of 2024 + IA No.CAN 1 of 2025 + IA No.CAN 2 of 2025 (Ratna Dey Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) in WPST 68 of 2024 Mr. Samim Ahammed Ms. Gulsanwara Pervin Ms. Saloni Bhattacharjee Md. Nasirul Haque ….. For the review applicant Mr. Sahasrangshu Bhattacharjee, Ld. A.G.P. Ms. Mary Datta Mr. Suchindram Bhattacharya ….. For the State Ms. Piyali Sengupta Mr. Victor Chatterjee ….. For the PSC Aggrieved by the order dated 12th August, 2024 passed in the writ petition being WPST 68 of 2024, the writ petitioner/applicant herein has preferred the present review petition being RVW 370 of 2024 along with an application for condonation of delay. As we have invited Mr. Ahammed, learned advocate appearing for the applicant to advance his arguments on merits of the matter and as the learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents have left the issue of condonation of delay to the discretion of this Court, we condone the delay in filing the present review petition and take up the review petition for final hearing, with the consent of the parties. The application for condonation of delay being CAN 1 of 2025 is, accordingly, disposed of. 2 Mr. Ahammed argues that the Hon’ble Court failed to consider a crucial fact that the notification issued by the Public Service Commission (in short, PSC) did not explicitly outline that the selection would be conducted solely on the basis of interview marks, disregarding the written test. Such procedural lapse renders the word ‘aggregate’ in the advertisement, as quoted in the order impugned, to be otiose. It was incumbent upon the authorities to take into consideration the written test marks obtained by the applicant. He further argues that pertaining to the said selection process, nine vacancies are existing and in consideration of the fact that the applicant had scored more in written test than candidates, who have been ultimately selected, discretion may be exercised in favour of the applicant. Ms. Sengupta, learned advocate appearing for PSC submits that there is no patent error apparent on the face of the records and the parameters prescribed for review do not postulate a rehearing of the dispute because a party has not highlighted all the aspects of the case or could perhaps argued them more forcefully. She contends that it would be explicit from the order impugned in the present review petition that PSC conducted a screening test as specified in the advertisement and the shortlisted candidates were brought within the zone of interview. The last candidate 3 recommended under the UR category scored 65 marks whereas the applicant secured only 60 marks. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Government Pleader enters appearance on behalf of the State respondents. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. It is well settled that review proceedings are not by way of appeal. The matters which ought to have been urged in the course of the appeal have been sought to be agitated afresh and it is also not a case that there had been discovery of any new and important matter and that the same could not be brought to the notice of the Court by the applicant at the time of hearing of the writ petition, even after exercise of due diligence. In view thereof, the argument of Mr. Ahammed that the appeal needs to be reheard upon review, is not acceptable to this Court. Accordingly, the review petition and the connected application being CAN 2 of 2025 are dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)