Ml- 03 rkd 02.02.2026 Ct.02 DM W.P.A. 731 of 2026 Pradip Biswas -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Ambu Bindu Chakraborty ….for the petitioner. Mr. Rajarshi Basu, Mr. Shehnaz Tareq Mina ….for the State. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Petitioner participated in West Bengal Audit and Accounts Service Recruitment (Preliminary) Examination, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘said selection process of 2017’) but grievance of the petitioner is on publication of result of said selection process of 2017 petitioner was not permitted to participate in next round of selection process. 3. By enclosing answer scripts petitioner has prayed for reevaluation of the same. Prayer is made for providing information to the petitioner of the said selection process of 2017. 4. State respondents are represented by learned advocates. 5. It is not brought to the notice of this court that whether it is provided in the rules for reevaluation of answer scripts or not. However, nothing is demonstrated that while evaluating answer scripts of the petitioner any material error crept in. 6. Moreover, issue relates to selection process of 2017, meanwhile eight years have passed. If panel was prepared on conclusion of selection process then it can be presumed that it is not alive after eight years. Furthermore, petitioner did not participate in next round of the said selection process of 2017. 7. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 wherein it was held in paragraph 30 (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit reevaluation or scrutiny of an answer script only reevaluation or scrutiny is permitted if it is demonstrated without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization and in rare or exceptional cases that material error has been committed. 8. In reference to the answer scripts which are annexed to this writ petition it is not highlighted that there was any anomaly on the part of the examiner to allot marks. 9. Hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 10. Writ petition stands dismissed. 2 11. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties on the usual undertakings. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) 3