September 7, 2026 Sl. No.A 6-10 Court No.1 s.biswas WPCT 128 of 2024 Rinku and others vs. Union of India and others WITH WPCT 129 of 2024 Satish Kumar and others vs. Union of India and others WITH WPCT 169 of 2024 Rupali Murmu Hansda vs. Union of India and others WITH WPCT 171 of 2024 Jitendra Kumar vs. Union of India and others WITH WPCT 176 of 2024 Prasanta Halder vs. Union of India and others Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharyya, Sr. Adv. Ms. Soma Kar Ghosh Ms. Suparna Paul ... for the petitioner in WPCT 128/2024 & WPCT 129/2024 Ms. Chandreyi Alam Ms. Runu Mukherjee ... for the Union of India in WPCT 128/2024 & WPCT 129/2024 Mr. Indranath Mitra ... for the petitioners in WPCT 169/2024, WPCT 171/2024 & WPCT 176/2024 2 Mr. Shyamal Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. ... for the Union of India in WPCT 176/2024 Mr. Ramen Bose ... for the respondent nos.4 & 5 in WPCT 169/2024 & WPCT 171/2024 The above writ petitions arise out of a common judgment dated 29th February, 2024 delivered by the learned Tribunal in 25 original applications and as the issues are interrelated and common, the same are taken up for analogous hearing, with the consent of the parties. Records would reveal that Chief Post Master General, West Bengal Circle (Kolkata) through the Assistant Director of Postal Services (Recruitment) issued a vacancy notification on 23rd December, 2015, for filling up 439 posts of Postman and Mail guard. In response thereto, the petitioners applied and appeared in the aptitude test/examination on 29th May, 2016. Thereafter, the list of selected candidates was published on 23rd December, 2016 and the petitioners’ names appeared in the same. As various complaints were received thereafter, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and a decision was taken to keep the publication in abeyance. Subsequently, the postal authorities enquired into the matter by constituting a Committee with a group of officers of the circle. The said Committee submitted its report on 9th February, 2018 and suggested for cancellation of the entire recruitment process. Accordingly, the recruitment 3 process was cancelled vide memo dated 12th February, 2018. Aggrieved thereby, some of the original applicants/petitioners and others, who were the selected candidates approached the learned Tribunal. The said original applications were disposed of by an order dated 11th September, 2019 with a direction upon the respondents therein to segregate the tainted ones and proceed with the selection while allowing the untainted ones to be appointed. The said order was challenged by the respondents in a writ petition being WPCT 149 of 2019, which was disposed of by an order dated 25th August, 2020, upon contested hearing, observing inter alia that segregation of the tainted candidates would be the best possible method so as to ensure that the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination process are not deprived. Pursuant to such direction of the Court, the Chief Post Master General, West Bengal Circle completed such exercise and passed a final order on 16th April, 2021 and final list was declared on 29th May, 2016. As would be explicit from the memo dated 16th April, 2021, a list of 381 successful untainted candidates was published. Unfortunately, the petitioners herein did not feature in the said list. Aggrieved thereby, they approached the learned Tribunal through several original applications, which were disposed of by the common judgment impugned in the present writ petition. In the hearing before the 4 learned Tribunal, the chart disclosing the reasons for rejection of individual applications in each of the original applications was placed, wherefrom it would appear that names of certain candidates were excluded for ‘incomplete declaration’, for not selecting the regional language and attempting the OMR sheet, for dotting, for erasing, for using whitener and for spotting besides darkening. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in WPCT 128 of 2024 and WPCT 129 of 2024 submits that it would appear from the records that the candidature of the petitioners has been struck off only on the ground of ‘incomplete declaration’. There is not even a single line in the chart as produced to disclose such alleged incompleteness in the application submitted. It is totally a cryptic declaration and such declaration without being fortified with appropriate reasons, is not sustainable in law. Alleged ‘incomplete declaration’ was in no manner material in evaluating the merit of the candidates nor could such technicality be classified as a case of malpractice. For such trivial discrepancy, the candidates could not have been denied appointment, moreso when, their names featured in the first select list. The State was not justified in making a mountain out of a molehill. As there was no material discrepancy, the candidature of the petitioners ought not to have been cancelled. It is also not in dispute that the 5 petitioners would not have derived any advantage in keeping the OMR incomplete. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments delivered in the cases of Ran Vijay Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357, Vashist Narayan Kumar vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2024) 11 SCC 785, Sachin Kumar and others vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) and others reported in (2021) 4 SCC 631 and Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6553. Mr. Mitra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners in WPCT 169/2024, WPCT 171/2024 and WPCT 176/2024 argues that the name of Rupali Murmu Hansda could not have been excluded from the select list for purported non-declaration/selection of regional language attempted on the OMR sheet moreso when, even if marks allotted on the basis of the OMR answers are excluded still the said candidates would have come within the zone of consideration. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed upon the documents annexed at pages 58 and 121 of the writ petition. According to Mr. Mitra, the petitioners whom he is representing cannot be described as tainted candidates. For trivial discrepancy, their names could not have been excluded from the final select list. The allegation that the candidates have not selected the 6 regional language was categorically denied by the respondents as would be explicit from the pleadings. Placing reliance upon the judgment delivered in the case of Joginder Pal & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors reported in (2014) 6 SCC 644, Mr. Mitra contends that the petitioners whom he is representing could not have been excluded from the list since they are untainted candidates. Ms. Alam, learned advocate appearing for the Union of India duly assisted by Mr. Mukherjee and Mr. Bose, denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Bhattacharyya and Mr. Mitra and submits that the exercise as directed in the order passed by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court in WPCT 149 of 2019 was completed. A composite perusal of the said order would reveal that the exercise directed was to scrutinize the genuinity of the candidates including their OMR answer sheets. The Hon’ble Court found fault with the entire cancellation of the recruitment process. The said order was neither challenged by the petitioners herein before the higher forum nor any review application was filed. In view thereof, the entire gamut could not have been reopened through the subsequent original applications filed by the petitioners. Ms. Alam further argues that there was no requirement towards incorporation of any further reasoning in the chart. Since the concerned petitioners did not completely answer the queries as sought for in 7 the OMR sheet, the reason for rejection was recorded as ‘incomplete declaration’. The fact that all the particulars in OMR were not furnished has also not been seriously disputed by the petitioners. The contention of Mr. Mitra that the candidate did select the regional language is not acceptable since in the rejoinder filed by the petitioners to the reply it was stated inter alia that ‘there was no clear instruction that the backside of the OMR sheet is to be filled up’. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. On the basis of the report of the Committee a thorough investigation was conducted and a report was submitted on 09th February, 2018. The recommendation of the Committee was duly accepted and the entire recruitment process was cancelled. The said original applications were disposed of ‘with a direction upon the respondents that, since the tainted candidates were being clearly and manifestly earmarked, as would appear from the vigilance reports and the vacancies being indubitably and irrefutably available, the authority can segregate the tainted ones and proceed with the Selection while allowing the untainted ones to be appointed’. Challenging the said order, the postal authorities preferred the writ petition being WPCT 149 of 2019. In course of hearing of all the said writ petitions, the Hon’ble Court found from the 8 vigilance report that out of a small sample of 51 non- qualified candidates 6 had lapses. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of observing, inter alia, as follows: ‘It is also not disputed by the writ petitioners and possibly in a given situation like this the segregation would be the best possible method so as to ensure that the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination process are not deprived. The vigilance report also goes to show that out of the sample of 51 non-qualified candidates 6 had lapses. The learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, on instruction, has submitted that the entire exercise can be completed by the Chief Postmaster General, West Bengal Circle within a period of three months from date to segregate tainted candidates. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ application by directing the Chief Postmaster General, West Bengal to complete such exercise within the period of four months from date and publish a list of successful untainted candidates in its website and issue appointment letters after the entire exercise is complete.’ The above order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court was accepted by the petitioners herein. They did not challenge the said order before the higher forum and also did not file any application for review. In view thereof, it needs to be ascertained as to whether the final decision was taken by the authorities in consonance with the said order. Having accepted the said order, the petitioners cannot again reopen the issues. Upon considering the all the materials on record, we find that the authorities had exercised their jurisdiction as directed by the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision. Reasons for rejection of the petitioners’ candidature had been disclosed in the chart placed before the learned Tribunal. The argument of Mr. Bhattacharya that ‘incomplete declaration’ is 9 cryptic in nature and that the same ought to have been supplemented by appropriate reasons is not acceptable to this Court moreso when the petitioners themselves have not categorically stated that they had disclosed all the particulars as sought for in the OMR sheet. It is also not a case that the respondents have acted mala fide. The ambit of scrutiny was detailed, in the order passed in the earlier writ petition and we do not find any material to arrive at any conclusion that the respondents have not complied with the previous directions issued by a coordinate Bench of this Court. The judgments upon which reliance has been placed by the petitioners are distinguishable on facts. The learned Tribunal upon dealing with the factual issues has arrived at specific findings and we do not find any error in the same. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Atarup Banerjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)