Ct. No.4 D/L 17.09.2026 (Naba) 12 W.P.S.T. 9 of 2026 Dr. Soumyendu Khatua Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Krishnendu Bera ...for the Petitioner Mr. Samrat Mukhrji, ld. A.G.P., Ms. Manisha Paswan ...for the State 1. The writ petitioner was the applicant before the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal in short) in OA 543 of 2020. The petitioner was aggrieved by the amended advertisement published in the recruitment process arising out of Advertisement No. R./HMO/78(1)/1 of 2019 in so far as it excluded the petitioner's experience. The Tribunal dismissed Original application OA 543 of 2020 by an order dated 08.08.2024, the same is put to challenge in the present writ proceedings. 2. Heard the learned advocate for the writ petitioner and the learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of the State. 3. The State came out with an advertisement on 20.12.2019, bearing No.R/HMO./78(1)/1/2019 for appointment of Homoeopathic Medical Officers under the West Bengal Homoeopathic Health Service. The advertisement specified requisite 2 eligibility based on educational qualification for applying. The candidates were required essentially to have a Bachelor Degree in Homeopathy from a recognized university or institute as included in the second schedule of the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973. They were also required to be registered with the appropriate authority specified in the advertisement. The advertisement contemplated reservation and other criteria. Insofar as grant of marks or experience the advertisement contemplated: Sl. No. Qualification Maximum Marks Remarks 4) Clinical & other Experience 15(Max.) 3 marks for each completed year i) for working in a Homoeopathic Speciality clinic or Wing, ii) M.O. (AYUSH), under RBSK, NHM. 4. The Government realised that inadvertently they uploaded the unamended criteria for clinical and other experience. Since, the Government had already decided to lay down different criteria, the Government proceeded by uploading a second advertisement on same date (20.12.2019), wherein the issue of experience was advertised to be different. The maximum marks awarded by the corrected/amended advertisement were 05 marks, which was to be comprised of one mark for each completed year of experience. The clause 3 regarding experience was modified in the following terms: Sl. No. Qualification Maximum Marks Remarks 3) Other experiences in Homoeopathy from any Government Institution or Government affiliated organization 5(Max.) 1 mark for each completed year, Maximum 5 marks Other experience should include Clinical, Teaching, Research and other experiences in Homoeopathy from any Government Institute or Government affiliated Organization excluding M.O. AYUSH under RBSK. 5. The writ petitioner, a candidate desirous of participating in the process, was working as a Medical Officer, AYUSH. He found the exclusion of his experience as MO, AYUSH under RBSK to be prejudicial to his interest and, therefore, filed an Original Application bearing O.A. No. 543 of 2020 before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal („Tribunal’ for short). Having assailed the amendment in the requisite experience, he participated in the recruitment process and emerged unsuccessful. 6. The learned advocate for the writ petitioner submits that the Tribunal has glossed over the fact that the authorities themselves earlier considered the petitioner, an M.O. (AYUSH) under RBSK to be equivalent with Medical Officers in the 4 other establishment. The amended advertisement, therefore, excluding the petitioner‟s experience is arbitrary and discriminatory. He submits that the exclusion is without any basis and therefore, the classification effected by the amended advertisement is unsustainable. 7. The learned A.G.P. submits that the authorities have merely taken steps to rectify an inadvertent error. The earlier advertisement was uploaded by mistake and the mistake was corrected on the same date, whereby the amended requisites for grant of marks under the heading „experience’ were promptly uploaded. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process with open eyes, knowing that the criteria for marks for experience had already been amended. 8. We have considered the rival submissions. 9. The crux of the submission, which arises for consideration is, whether the change in the criteria for grant of marks for other experience is discriminatory, or not. 10. We have considered the submission of the learned advocate for the writ petitioner alleging that the amended advertisement seeks to discriminate against M.O. (AYUSH), who are otherwise at par with reference to their qualifications, with others 5 who were considered admissible for grant of marks under the heading „experience’. 11. It appears that the earlier advertisement published on the same date contemplated grant of 15 marks for “Clinical and other Experience”, which was to be comprised of 03 marks for each completed year. 12. The advertisement, therefore, contemplated that those who are working in “Homoeopathic Speciality Clinic or Wing” and “M.O. (AYUSH) under RBSK, NHM” were considered at par. 13. We would also take into consideration the fact that the State has taken a stand that the earlier advertisement was uploaded due to inadvertence and that the subsequent advertisement of the same date was published to rectify such mistake/inadvertent error. There can be no dispute or grudge against a bona fide rectification or correction of a mistake. 14. However, whether the amendment resulted in a discrimination, or not, would be revealed by considering the subsequent/corrected advertisement, Clause 3 of which is the contentious Clause. 15. Whereas M.O. (AYUSH) under RBSK was treated at par with those working in Homoeopathic Speciality Clinic or Wing in the earlier 6 advertisement; in the amended advertisement neither those working in “Homoeopathic Speciality Clinic or Wing” nor “M.D. (AYUSH) under RBSK, NHM” have been considered eligible for grant of any marks for experience. 16. We find that qualification requisite for grant of experience in Clause 3 of the amended /corrected advertisement includes “clinical” experience, “teaching” experience, “research” experience and “other experiences in Homoeopathy from any Government institute or Government affiliated organisation”, which was absent in the earlier advertisement. 17. Such requirement having introduced, there is no scope for the petitioner, who are contractual Medical Officers under the AYUSH Scheme. There is no material on record to show that the work of the writ petitioner involves clinical/teaching/research or any other such experience in Homeopathy from a Government Institute or any other Government affiliated Organisation to claim parity with the persons, who are deriving clinical/teaching/research and other experiences in Homoeopathy from a Government institute or Government affiliated organisation. The law is well settled that the law contemplates equality amongst equals. The 7 qualification, therefore, does not create any discrimination. 18. In the present case, the authorities/employer having the discretion to lay down the standards for recruitment, considered it necessary to grant marks for experience only to those, who acquired clinical/teaching/research and other experiences in Homoeopathy from a Government institute or Government affiliated organisation. Such requirement was imposed by the Government having regard to the standard of medical care to be provided to the general public. Therefore, exclusion of the M.O. (AYUSH), cannot be said to be flawed in any way whatsoever. An issue of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, therefore, in our opinion does arise. 19. We, therefore, find no force in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner to assail the amended criteria. 20. The order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. 543 of 2020 dismissing the Original Application requires no interference. 21. The Writ Petition is dismissed. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Partha Pratim Roy, J.)