Item No.- 6 02.09.2026 Court No. 4 Rohan In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side W.P.S.T. 1 of 2026 Dr. Tapas Kumar Mandal Versus State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Firdous Samim Ms. Gopa Biswas Ms. Salini Bhattacherjee Mr. Md. Imzamamul Islam Mr. Ayush Majumder … for the Petitioner Mr. D. N. Ray, Ld. GP Mr. Pulakesh Bajpayee Mr. Kaustav Seal … for the State 1. Heard the learned advocate for the writ petitioner/applicant. 2. The writ petitioner applied for participating in the recruitment process pursuant to an advertisement dated 20th December, 2019. The recruitment process was for preparation of a panel for appointment to the post of Homeopathic Medical Officers. He emerged unsuccessful in the process. Thereafter, he filed the original application claiming that he was deprived of marks for his experience. The West Bengal Administrative Tribunal has rejected his O.A. No. 587 of 2023 by an order dated 19th November, 2024. The 2 same is the subject matter of the present writ proceeding. 3. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the writ petitioner that the advertisement was followed by two addendums, the last being issued pursuant to a decision of the Board dated 20th February, 2020. Prior to issuance of the second addendum on 20th February, 2020, the petitioner was under confusion whether the experience certificate which he possessed issued by the Visva Bharati was admissible or not. Thereafter, there was no opportunity for submitting the same. 4. He submits that thus, he was deprived of consideration of his experience. He was under an impression that he would be required to submit the certificates only after shortlisting and, therefore, there is no fault on his part, yet he was deprived of such consideration in the recruitment process. 5. The petitioner also made a representation dated 14th February, 2022 pursuant to the order passed by the learned Tribunal in the earlier O.A. 40 of 2022 filed by him, raising such grievance before the authorities. The same was also rejected. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned advocate for the State. 3 7. We find that pursuant to the advertisement dated 20th December, 2019, two addendums were issued in view of certain changes which the Board considered necessary in respect of the admissible experience and evaluation. The last addendum was pursuant to the decision of the Board dated 20th February, 2020. 8. The interview call letter was issued to the petitioner nearly a year thereafter and he attended the interview on 4th January, 2021, without raising any such grievance. The final list of shortlisted candidates was published on 2nd November, 2021. From the record, it is obvious that till such time, the petitioner raised no grievance regarding their being any confusion in his mind or regarding there being any deprivation in submission of a certificate as a result of two addendums. 9. The first representation is dated 14th February, 2022. Thereafter, he has moved the Tribunal in O.A. No. 40 of 2022. 10. Such circumstances appearing from the record makes it abundantly clear that the issue has been raised by the petitioner as an afterthought. If the petitioner had a genuine confusion or was deprived as a result of the addendums, he would have raised a grievance in this regard after issuance of the interview call letter, which he did not do. In fact, he participated in the interview 4 and only after the publication of the result, he raised objection. 11. Therefore, we find no force in the submissions. 12. The learned Tribunal, in our opinion, rightly rejected the original applications which require no interference in exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 14. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Partha Pratim Roy, J.)