S/L 02 31.08.2026 Court No.04 B.K.N C.O.S.T. 9 of 2011 Basudeb Chakraborty & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Surajit Samanta, Ms. Sohini Samanta, Mr. Subhasis Maity … for the Petitioner. Mr. Sushanta Dutta, Ms. Sarda Sha … for the State. 1. Heard the learned senior advocate for the writ petitioners/applicants and the learned State advocate. 2. A requisition was sent by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, West Bengal to the Employment Exchange for sponsoring the name of candidates for appointment against existing vacancies on the post of Male Constable to be recruited during the year 1998. The writ petitioners’ names were sponsored. They successfully participated in the physical scrutiny, and thereafter in the interview. However, they did not emerge successful in the recruitment process and approached the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) by filing O.A. No. 1675 of 1998. The same was disposed of without allowing any relief to the petitioners by an order dated 21.04.2009, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition. 3. The learned senior advocate for the writ petitioners submits that the Tribunal’s order is without considering the records of the recruitment process which were 2 requisitioned by the Tribunal by its earlier order dated 13.12.2004 and 29.04.2005. 4. The Tribunal had specifically directed for production of the relevant papers relating to the selection process. The authorities, however, produced only a tabulation chart and relying on the tabulation chart the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application. Since the authorities did not produce the papers relating to the selection process, the Tribunal should not have dismissed the petitioners’ Original Application and there was an occasion for the Tribunal to ensure production of the papers relating to the selection process to ascertain/verify the allegation of irregularities/illegalities in the recruitment process alleged by the petitioner in the Original Application, for which the Tribunal had earlier directed to produce the documents. 5. The learned State advocate on the other hand submits that from perusal of the tabulation chart the Tribunal found that the petitioners were way beyond the scope of consideration based on merit. The petitioner Kaushik Roy, an SC category candidate and was placed at 33rd position out of 37 SC candidates; and number of vacancies reserved for SC was 9 only. The other appellant/petitioner Basudeb Chakraborty was a general (UR) category candidate. He was placed at serial no. 31 out of 42 UR category candidates and there were only 15 UR category vacancies. Under the 3 circumstances the order of the Tribunal does not require any interference whatsoever. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. 7. The submission of the learned senior advocate for the petitioners regarding the production of papers relating to recruitment process are required to be considered with reference to the alleged irregularities/illegalities in the recruitment process, made out by the writ petitioners in the Original Application. 8. On going through the Original Application we found that the writ petitioners alleged that the name of the writ petitioners were wrongly omitted from the list of selected candidates and those who did not qualify in the physical test were called for interview and their names have been declared as selected candidates. The allegation does not refer to any specific instance of any specific candidate. It is a vague and omnibus allegation. Based on such vague and omnibus allegation whether forum/Court would invoke judicial review to interfere with the recruitment process at the instance of a disgruntled candidate is an issue which by now stands settled. The law does not contemplate interference in such matters. 9. We also find that the allegations made out in the Original Application are that those who did not qualify in the physical test were allowed to participate in the interview. The petitioners also participated in the interview. However, they did not raise any such 4 objection at the time of interview. There was no objection raised whatsoever, till the final result of the recruitment process was declared, wherein the petitioners were excluded. 10. Another aspect which arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal could have proceeded to dispose of the Original Application on the basis of tabulation chart. We find no infirmity in the same. The tabulation chart disclosed the petitioners’ position way beyond the scope of consideration in the recruitment process, which undisputed position, we noted above. 11. Since no specific allegation was made out in the Original Application, there was no specific instance to be verified from the papers relating to the recruitment process. Under these circumstances, disposal of the Original Application based on the petitioners’ position in the tabulation chart, in our opinion, does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. 12. Lastly, we would take notice of the fact that the recruitment process in question is in respect of recruitment proposed to be made during the year 1998. The recruitment process is nearly three decades old. The same concluded long back. Under the circumstances, at this juncture there is no occasion for the Writ Court to exercise extra ordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with such recruitment process, or the Tribunal’s order dated 21.04.2009. 5 13. In view of our above consideration, we find no merit in the writ petition. 14. The writ petition is dismissed. 15. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all necessary formalities. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Partha Pratim Roy, J.)