IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad AND The Hon’ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya W.P.S.T 113 of 2013 Monirul Islam Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ars. For the petitioners : Ms. Pampa Dey (Dhabal) For the State : Mr. Tapan Kr. Mukherjee, Ld. AGP. Ms. Sangeeta Roy Heard on : 30.01.2025 Judgment on : 30.01.2025 MADHURESH PRASAD, J.: 1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State. 2. On 21st October, 2011 the advertisement in question was issued for making appointments on the post of Group – D in the West Bengal Armed Police. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he applied pursuant to the advertisement and was unsuccessful in the process of 2 recruitment. It appears from the records that the result of the recruitment process was published on 16th March, 2012. 4. We are informed by the learned counsel for the State that all the appointments have also been made pursuant to the result. In May, 2012 the petitioner filed an application under the RTI before the Deputy Inspector General of Police. The application filed two months after the final results of the recruitment process was seeking information as to the marks obtained by the petitioner in the written test and the details regarding his performance in the recruitment process. 5. The petitioner thereafter approached the High Court by filing a writ petition. The writ petition bearing number W.P. 13997(W) of 2012 was filed in the month of September, 2012, about six months after the recruitment process was over. The writ petition was not entertained by this Court, since the issue raised by the petitioner being in relation to service under the State was to be raised before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. The writ petition was accordingly not entertained and the petitioner’s petition was returned enabling him to present it before the appropriate forum. 6. It is thereafter that the petitioner has filed the Original Application being O.A. 1234 of 2012. The petitioner before the Tribunal has urged a ground that the advertisement pursuant to 3 which he had participated in the recruitment process did not contain any Clause for reservation for physically handicapped persons and, therefore, sought annulment of the entire recruitment process which had concluded in March, 2012. The Tribunal has rejected the Original Application by considering the fact that the petitioner had participated in the recruitment process as a general category candidate with open eyes knowing that there was no provision for reservation on the grounds of physically handicapped category. The Tribunal, therefore, has found the challenge to the recruitment process at the instance of the petitioner to be unsustainable. 7. The reasons assigned by the Tribunal in our opinion does not require any interference. The fact remains that the petitioner had applied pursuant to the advertisement in the year 2011 with open eyes. The recruitment process concluded in March, 2012. Only when the Original Application was filed in December, 2012 the petitioner has raised a ground that there was no provision for reservation under the physically handicap category though he had participated in the recruitment process as a general category candidate. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal refusing to interfere with the recruitment process at the instance of the petitioner; to the 4 prejudice of all those who have participated and emerged successful in the process. 8. The writ petition stands dismissed in the above terms. 9. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all necessary formalities. (MADHURESH PRASAD, J.) (SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.) B.K.N. A.R. (Court)