10th September, 2026 (D/L No.28) Ct. No.4 (SKB) M.A.T. 1676 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025 Tanmoy Ghosh and others Versus The State of West Bengal and others Mr. Upendra Roy, Mr. Uttam Banerjee, Mr. Aniruddha Singha Roy … for the appellants/writ petitioners. Mr. Abhik Das Sarma … for the proforma respondent nos.14,15,17 & 19. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the appellants/writ petitioners. 2. The appellants/writ petitioners claimed to be the Civil Defence Volunteers, who were desirous of appointment on contractual basis as Auxiliary Fire Personnel pursuant to the notification contained in letter dated 07.02.2012. There were 175 posts for Hooghly District as per the letter dated 07.02.2012. The present petitioners were working as Civil Defence Volunteers in Hooghly District. The authorities, however, short listed 148 candidates only and declared 106 to be qualified. 3. The shrinkage of vacancies by the authorities was assailed by the appellants/writ petitioners as being arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable. 2 4. The appellants/writ petitioners filed a writ petition bearing W.P.12246(W) of 2013 and analogous cases, all of which were disposed of by a common order dated 30.11.2015. 5. The writ court after giving opportunity to the respondent authorities was not satisfied with the reason assigned for decreasing the vacancies in the process of filling up; and found such exclusion of vacancies to be unsustainable. 6. However, the learned Single Judge while passing the order was not unmindful of the fact that the writ petitioners could at best be considered against vacancies existing on the date on which the order was being passed in the writ petition. The writ court, thus, directed as follows: “For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that the Director General, West Bengal Fire & Emergency Services, shall revisit the vacancy position throughout the State of West Bengal and if vacancies are available, consider the petitioners’ case for being appointed to the post-in-question, provided of course, they are otherwise eligible and/or entitled to, in accordance with law.” 7. Thereafter, the authorities invited the petitioners for a screening test wherein they did not participate. 8. The writ petitioners questioned the conduct of a screening test before the learned Single Judge in a writ proceeding (W.P. No.8609 (W) of 2016). The writ petition was dismissed, giving rise to the present intra court appeal. 3 9. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellants/writ petitioners that neither the original notification for filling up contractual vacancies contained in the letter dated 07.02.2012; nor the order of the writ court passed in W.P.12246(W) of 2013 contemplated a second screening test. The appellants/writ petitioners, therefore, were not required to participate in such screening test. The screening test was an illegal exercise leading to deprivation of the appellants’/petitioners’ consideration and the petitioners were entitled to get relief of appointment pursuant to the order passed by the writ court. 10. We have considered the letter dated 07.02.2012 notifying the vacancies. The same specifies standards of eligibility for appointment on contractual basis, such as physical measurement and educational qualification. The requisite age is also specified for the purposes of appointment on contractual basis. 11. We find that in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the writ petitioners themselves have admitted that a selection committee consisting of five members was formed for selection of suitable candidates. Therefore, a process of screening emanating from the letter dated 07.02.2012 is evident. 4 12. In so far as the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.12246(W) of 2013, extracted above, the same clearly notes that the petitioners are to be considered against the vacancies available for being appointed, provided they are otherwise eligible and/or entitled to in accordance with law. 13. The order, therefore, contemplates an assessment of their eligibility which was rightly proposed to be done by the authorities by a screening test in compliance of the writ court’s order. 14. The writ petitioners/appellants, however, did not participate in the screening test and have challenged the conduct of the same, which we found to be unsustainable in view of the consideration above. 15. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.8609(W) of 2016. The intra court appeal is dismissed. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Partha Pratim Roy, J.)