IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:- The Hon’ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad And The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas W.P.S.T. 248 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2026 Sri Vinod Kumar Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the Petitioner : Mr. Jaydip Kar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Amitava Chaudhuri, Mr. N. Roy, Mr. Pradipta Siddhanta For the State : Mr. D. N. Ray, Ld. G.P., Mr. Guddu Singh, Mrs. Sarda Sha For the P.S.C., W.B. : Ms. Shraboni Sarkar, Ms. Umme Habiba Khatun Judgment on : 8th July, 2026 Madhuresh Prasad, J.: 1. Heard the learned senior advocate for the writ petitioner and the learned G.P assisted by Mr. Guddu Singh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The writ petitioner was the applicant before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. 602 of 2021. The Tribunal declined to entertain the Original Application filed by the writ 2 petitioner by an order dated 04.09.2025 which is the subject matter of the present writ petition. 3. The brief factual background starts from issuance of an advertisement in the year 2009-2010 for appointment of Sub-Inspectors. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process and was temporarily appointed on 16.01.2010. Upon his appointment the petitioner was required to undergo training which comprises of written as well as physical curriculum. Candidates were required to pass the training both in the written as well as physical by securing an aggregate of 60 per cent marks and 50 (qualifying) marks in each of the subjects. The petitioner could not obtain the qualifying marks in the swimming test. 4. Despite the petitioner not qualifying in the swimming test, his name was published in the result of the final examination dated 11.02.2011. It was mentioned in the result that he was declared to have passed the training course and to pass out, but a resolution be taken directing the petitioner to appear in the examination of the outdoor subjects in which he could not secure the qualifying marks. The petitioner thereafter was declared to be placed at serial no. 3 in the merit list of cadets published by the DIG at the Police Training College, Barrackpore on 16.06.2011. This position (serial no.3) was consequently reflected in an order no.238/CRO dated 06.07.2011 issued by the Joint Commissioner of Police, Head quarters Kolkata. The fact is obvious from the order dated 06.07.2011, wherein at the bottom of the order it is mentioned “This refers to Memo No.2061/RO dated 16.06.2011 of DIG P.T.C BKP.” 3 5. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared for the supplementary swimming test which he later qualified. The petitioner was thus declared to be finally passed in the training. He was thereafter placed at serial no. 171 in the gazette notification dated 11.02.2013, wherein the inter se position of the cadets Sub-Inspectors/Sub-Inspectress of the petitioner’s batch was published. 6. It is submitted by the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant/writ petitioner that petitioner had already been declared at serial no. 3 in the merit list published by the Deputy Inspector General of Police on 16.06.2011 and Commissioner of Police on 06.07.2011. The declaration of his position at serial no. 3 was despite the fact that he had initially not qualified in the swimming test. Such position was consciously awarded to the petitioner and down grading of the same to serial No. 171 in the gazette notification dated 11.02.2013 could not be done, but by way of a penalty. 7. The learned senior advocate took us through the provisions of the Police Training College Manual, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1936 Manual’). Referring to Rule 63 he would submit that seniority of the cadets/candidates was required to be fixed with reference to the date of their posting on probation. The petitioner was posted on probation based on final result dated 11.02.2011 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Training, West Bengal and order dated 06.07.2011 issued by the Commissioner of Police Kolkata wherein he was placed at serial No. 3. Such determination of petitioner’s seniority was in accordance with Clause 63 of the 1936 Manual. We, therefore, consider it apposite to 4 reproduce Clause 63 of the 1936 Manual relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel, which reads: “63. The relative seniority of the cadets appointed probationary sub-inspectors will be ordinarily in accordance with the marks obtained in the final examination. This rule, however, does not affect any subsequent order of the degradation or stoppage of promotion or promotion by selection or merit.” 8. The learned senior advocate submitted that being aggrieved by such down grading of the petitioner’s seniority, contrary to the provisions contained in the 1936 Manual, the petitioner earlier approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 274 of 2020. The same was disposed of directing the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s claim. The order of the Tribunal passed in the earlier Original Application is dated 18.11.2020. Pursuant thereto the petitioner’s claim was considered by the Joint Commissioner of Police and was rejected by an order dated 14.01.2021. The same was put to challenge by the petitioner promptly by filing an O.A. No. 602 of 2021. 9. The learned senior advocate, therefore, submits that the order of the Tribunal rejecting the petitioner’s claim on the premise that the petitioner had moved the Tribunal five and half years after the petitioner’s down grading of the seniority is unsustainable. The order of the Joint Commissioner was passed in the year 2021 in compliance of an order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 274 of 2020. Promptitude was not lacking on the part of the petitioner in assailing this order. Therefore, the reason assigned by the Tribunal that petitioner challenged downgrading of his seniority by a representation after 5 and half years is unsustainable. 5 10. He submits that the petitioner’s claim substantially is for rectification of the mistake which occurred in the gazette notification dated 11.02.2013. He, therefore, prayed for restoration of a seniority earlier granted by the authorities as per the determination made by the Deputy Inspector General of Police on 16.06.2011. Such rectification was required to be done by the authorities so as to restore the petitioner’s seniority (at serial 3), which was in terms of Clause 63 of the 1936 Manual. He, therefore, submits that this Court should set aside the order of the Tribunal and direct for restoration of the petitioner’s seniority as obtained on 11.02.2011. 11. The learned advocate appearing for the State on the other hand submitted that the order of the Tribunal insofar as it has considered the petitioner’s approach belated, requires no interference. The rectification of the petitioner’s seniority was done long back on 11.02.2013. The Original Application was filed in the year 2021. While filing the Original Application, the writ petitioner did not implead the persons whose seniority was determined above him in the gazette notification dated 11.02.2013. It is submitted that the petitioner’s approach to the Tribunal is, therefore, a belated approach. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly held the same. 12. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the State that as per Rule 57(c) of the 1936 Manual, the petitioner was required to pass the swimming test before a final result could be issued declaring him passed. Only thereafter the petitioner could be confirmed in service. The fact that he was allowed to join on probation, therefore, does not vest any right in 6 the petitioner to claim a seniority, with effect from a date when he did not even possess the requisite qualification for being declared finally passed. The authorities have considered the petitioner’s claim with reference to the rule and also taking into consideration the petitioner’s belated challenge to the gazette notification. The same, therefore, did not require any interference. 13. In support of his submission that the petitioner’s approach to the Tribunal was a belated approach, he placed reliance on the decision of a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Malcom Lawrence Cecil D’Souza –Vs.- Union of India and Others reported in (1976) 1 SCC 599. 14. A further submission is advanced that there is an inherent jurisdiction or option in every administrative authority to rectify its own mistakes, unless there is some specific provision of law which prohibits such a course. No such prohibitory provision has been pointed out. In fact a harmonious reading of Rule 57(c) and 63 leaves no ambiguity that the petitioner could not be considered as having passed the requisite training for confirmation in service. Till such time the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification of training passed, he continued to be a probationer and, therefore, no right could be claimed in respect of the said period. 15. We have considered the rival submissions and the judgments cited at the bar. 7 16. The substantial claim of the petitioner is restoration of his seniority as declared in the communication dated 16.06.2011 issued by the Deputy Inspector General and order dated 06.07.2011 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata. The petitioner claims that the gazette notification of 11.02.2013 insofar as it is at variance with the earlier letter dated 16.06.2011 and order dated 06.07.2011 is unsustainable. 17. We find a basic fallacy in such claim of the writ petitioner for the simple reason that the fixation of the petitioner’s seniority was in a merit list of candidates published by the Deputy Inspector General of the Police Training Centre. It is not in dispute that as on the date (16.06.2011) when the said list was published, the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification of having 50% marks in each subject and 60% in aggregate for being declared finally passed or contemplated in Rule 57(c) of the 1963 Manual. We also find that the initial result of the final examination published by the DIG training contained a clear stipulation in the following terms: “They may be declared to have passed the training course and to pass out. Resolution may be taken directing the Cadet SI’s to appear in the examination of the Outdoor subjects in which they could not secure the qualifying marks.” 18. Therefore, there is no ambiguity regarding a fact that petitioner did not possess the requisite marks for being declared finally passed in the training curriculum. He was passed out with a stipulation for taking a resolution directing the petitioner to appear in the examination in the subject (swimming) in which he did not secure the qualifying marks. 8 19. The merit list published by the DIG training on 16.06.2011 wherein the petitioner has been shown at serial no.3 is based on the final result dated 11.02.2011 wherein the petitioner was declared passed with a condition that a resolution be taken requiring him to appear in the examination of another subject in which he did not secure qualifying marks. The consequent order dated 06.07.2011 issued by the Commissioner is based on the merit list contained in the DIG letter dated 16.06.2011. The same is obvious from the footnote of the Commissioner’s order. Both these lists (dated 16.06.2011 and 16.07.2011) failed to take into consideration the fact that the petitioner had not been declared finally passed in the ‘Result of Final Examination’ dated 11.02.2011. Therefore, the two merit lists also failed to take into consideration the fact that as per the initial result of the final examination dated 11.02.2011, petitioner was required to appear in the examination for the subject (swimming) in which he did not secure qualifying marks. This is obvious from the note at the bottom of the final result dated 11.02.2011 extracted above. This fact is apparent from a merit list of candidates published thereafter on 03.11.2011 by the DIG training wherein the petitioner’s name figures in a separate “List of Failed Cadet SIs (UB)KP of Batch No.57/09-10.” 20. Thereafter the petitioner qualified in the subject wherein he had failed (swimming), when he was declared passed in the second supplementary final examination by an order no.628 dated 29.05.2012. Only after the petitioner qualified in the swimming test, he became eligible for being declared passed as per Rule 57(c) of the 1936 Manual. After 9 being declared finally passed he became eligible for being placed in the seniority list of sub-inspectors/sub-inspectress of the batch. Thus, he was rightly placed in the merit list accordingly at serial 171 in the Kolkata Police gazette publication dated 11.02.2013. 21. From the several letters and orders considered above it is obvious that the inadvertent error of placing the petitioner at serial 3, when he had not even finally passed the training curriculum was rectified by the merit list dated 03.11.2011 wherein the petitioner was shown in a list of failed candidates. Thereafter, the petitioner participated in the second supplementary final examination for clearing the subject (swimming) in which earlier he had not qualified. Such conduct of the petitioner demonstrates that he was well aware of the fact that he had not finally passed the training curriculum and was required to pass the same for being considered finally passed in terms of Rule 57(c) of the 1936 Manual. If at all the petitioner was of an opinion otherwise, he would have challenged the merit list contained in order no.1237 dated 03.11.2011 wherein his name was figuring in the list of failed cadets, which he did not do. 22. In view of our consideration above we find that there was no scope for the petitioner to contend otherwise. The petitioner was not finally passed and could not be permitted to take any advantage of his position in the merit list contained in letter dated 16.06.2011 issued by the DIG or the order dated 06.07.2011 issued by the Commissioner of Police. 10 23. The order no.1237 was issued thereafter on 03.11.2011 showing the petitioner as a failed candidate and the same was not objected to or challenged by the petitioner. Thus, there was no occasion or basis for the petitioner to place reliance on the earlier two letters dated 16.06.2011 and 06.07.2011 issued by the DIG and the Commissioner of Police. The order dated 03.11.2011 rectified the erroneous position of the petitioner in the merit list vide letter dated 16.06.2011 issued by the DIG and the order dated 06.07.2011 issued by the Commissioner of Police. Therefore, there is no basis for the petitioner to claim any benefit of the inadvertent seniority indicated in the earlier two orders which stood rectified without any objection from the petitioner by order no.1237 dated 03.11.2011. The rectification, noticed above was also in accord with Rule 57(c) of the 1936 Manual. 24. Insofar as the claim with reference to Rule 63 is concerned, a plain reading of the same reveals that the relative seniority of the cadets who are appointed on probation will be “….in accordance with the marks obtained in the final examination….”. The determination of seniority, therefore, is not dependent upon the posting of the cadet on probation, but in accordance with the marks obtained in the final examination. 25. It is not in dispute that the seniority published on 11.02.2013 is based on the petitioner’s marks obtained in the final examination. The claim of the petitioner, therefore, in our considered view is unsustainable since the petitioner’s merit list position dated 16.06.2011 ceases to exist on issuance of the order number 1237, on 03.11.2011. Therefore, a 11 submission that the gazette notification dated 11.02.2013 was unsustainable, is devoid of any substance. 26. The submissions of the petitioner are founded on a position in the earlier merit list which was an inadvertent error, which was duly rectified without any demur from the petitioner. The petitioner cannot claim for perpetuation of an obvious mistake, which was in violation of clause 57(c) of 1936 Manual, and was required to be rectified. The same has rightly been done by the authorities in the order dated 03.11.2011 bearing no.1237; and the Kolkata Police Gazette publication dated 11.02.2013. The petitioner therefore, is estopped from claiming any benefit based on the merit list contained in the DIGs letter and the order of the Commissioner, dated 16.06.2011 and 06.07.2011 respectively. Even otherwise it is trite law that one cannot claim any right on the basis of a mistake. 27. Another issue raised by the learned G.P is the issue of delay. We also find substance in such submission. We find that not only is there a delay but there are latches also, since the petitioner never assailed the merit list dated 03.11.2011. The petitioner approached the Tribunal for the first time in 2020, about seven years after determination of the petitioner’s seniority vis-à-vis the other candidates by the Gazette publication dated 11.02.2013. The issue raised also concerns third party rights being the seniority of about 170 candidates placed above him in the Gazette notification dated 11.02.2013. 12 28. Considering the above facts, we find substance in the submission of the learned State Counsel that the petitioner’s approach to the Tribunal was a belated approach. We, therefore, find force in reliance placed by the learned State advocate on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malcom Lawrence Cecil D’Souza (supra). 29. Insofar as the submission of the learned senior advocate that the order of the Tribunal dated 18.11.2020 gave a fresh cause of action. We find such submission to be unsustainable. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India & Ors. –Vs.- M. K. Sarkar reported in 2010 (2) SCC 59 that for the purposes of delay and latches the initial cause of action has to be considered and merely for the fact that any Court or Tribunal has issued a direction for consideration of the claim will not give rise to a fresh cause of action. 30. Relevant extract of the judgment in the case of M. K. Sarkar (supra) reads: “15.When a belated representation in regard to a “stale” or “dead” issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the “dead” issue or time- barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court’s direction. Neither a court’s direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches.” 31. In view of our above consideration above, we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal dated 04.09.2025 passed in 13 O.A. No. 602 of 2021 impugned in the present writ petition, in exercise of extraordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 32. The writ petition is dismissed. 33. Pending application, if any, is also dismissed. 34. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) I agree. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)