16.09.2026 Court No.13 Item No. 7 pk FMA 618 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Sayantika Saha Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Bikram Banerjee, Ms. Sagarika Goswami, …For the appellant. Mr. Sahasrangshu Bhattacharya, Ms. Mary Datta, ..For the State. Ms. Koleli Bhattacharyya, Mr. Bibek Dutta. ..For the W.B.B.S.E. Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee, Mr. Suman BAnerjee, Ms. Ayana Banerjee … For the S.S.C. 1. The appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 06.04.2026 passed by the Single Bench in WPA 1844 of 2026. 2. The brief facts relevant to the case are that the petitioner participated in the second SLST for the year 2025 and was in the scheduled caste female category. She gave option for the post of Assistant Teacher in life sciences to be instructed in the English medium. Admittedly in the list of tentative vacancies published by the SLST, there was only one vacancy in the said category. 3. In terms of the directions of the Supreme Court, the said vacancy was given to an in service candidates. 2 The petitioner has filed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is entitled to exercise option to switch mediums from English to Bengali. Admittedly there are about 10 vacancies in the Bengali medium. In the category in life sciences reserved for female scheduled caste candidates. 4. The writ petitioner would argue that her aggregate marks are 65 higher than the last or second last candidate in the Bengali medium in the aforesaid subject and category. It is therefore argued that the petitioner in all fairness ought to be allowed to switch medium from English to Bengali to enable her to get a job as an Assistant Teacher. 5. The learned Single Bench was of the view that allowing the petitioner to switch option from English to Bengali would upset and derail the recruitment process. We are in agreement with the views expressed by the Single Bench. We find that accommodating the petitioner in the Bengali medium of instruction in the subject and category would ipso facto and illegally deny appointment to a qualified candidate within the zone of consideration and against the number of vacancies advertised in the post-in-question for the Bengali medium. There is in fact no provision in the applicable rules for change of options after submission of application or in the course of the recruitment process. 3 6. This Court is also in agreement with the views of the Single Bench that the petitioner should have applied for Bengali as a medium given the larger number of vacancies thereat even in the tentative vacancy list published by the Board as well as the SLST. 7. This Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 06.04.2026 calls for no interference. Equity in favour of one person is not justified when it has the effect of depriving rights already accrued to another person. 8. In the light of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the instant appeal. 9. Accordingly, FMA 618 of 2026 is dismissed. Consequently, connected pending application being CAN 1 of 2026 is also dismissed. 10. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 11. There will be no order as to costs. 12. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) (Anuj Singh, J.)