12.08.2026 rc/ct.no.15 Item No.16 WPA No. 6750 of 2026 Debi Rani Pal Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Nikhil Kumar Gupta ..for the petitioner Mr. Madhu Jana Ms. Puja Sonkar ..for the State Supplementary report submitted by the State is taken on record. The petitioner applied for the post of CSP-Bank Linkage pursuant to a notice issued through the Sangha Samabay of Rampurhat-I Development Block, Birbhum on December 10, 2025 declaring nine vacancies. Though the petitioner appeared for the written examination and the interview, she was not selected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the selection of the private respondent for the post on two fold grounds. First, the notification dated December 10, 2025 records that priority shall be given to candidates who have completed graduation. The petitioner is a graduate whereas the private respondent has completed higher secondary. Second, the private respondent was the vice chairperson of Parikalpana Sangha Samabay and resigned from the said post only prior to appearing for her interview. One of the conditions laid down in the notice is that the candidate should not be a near relative or family member of an employee of the Sangha Samabay. Placing reliance on the report submitted by the State, learned counsel for the State submits that the private respondent resigned from the post of vice chairperson of Parikalpana Sangha Samabay on December 01, 2025 which was accepted by the authority by a resolution taken on December 02, 2025. The notice of appointment was issued on December 10, 2025, that is, after the resignation of the private respondent was accepted by the authority. It appears from the supplementary report that the private respondent obtained higher marks than the petitioner in the written examination and interview. It is a fact that the notice of appointment says that priority shall be given to graduates. However, since the process of appointment includes written examination and an interview of the candidates, such examination/interview should be given priority. Though it is not stated in the notices, a graduate may be given priority for appointment over a candidate possessing lower educational qualification in the event the marks obtained by both the candidates are same. The higher educational qualification can be said to be a secondary limb for consideration for appointment in such situation. 2 In view of the fact that the private respondent has scored higher marks than the petitioner and was eligible for the post, she has been rightly selected for the post. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has placed reliance on an authority in Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for a public authority to frustrate a claim of legitimate expectation, it must objectively demonstrate by placing relevant material before the Court that its decision was in the public interest. There is no quarrel with the said proposition of law. But the question of legitimate expectation could have surfaced in the present case if both the candidates had scored equal marks. Since that is not the case herein, the ratio decidendi laid down in the judgment is not applicable in the present case. The writ petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Since no affidavit is invited, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Suvra Ghosh,J) 3 4