Form No. J.(2) Item No. DL/10 adeb - AR (CT) Ct. No. 2 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICATION APPELLATE SIDE Before: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA W.P.A. 2069 of 2026 Sandip Pramanik & Ors. VS. The West Bengal Police Recruitment Board & Ors. For the Petitioner : Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, Adv. Mr. Kazi Ardan Ali, Adv. Ms. Asmita Mitra, Adv. For the State-Respondents : Mr. Vimal Kumar Shahi, Ld. AGP Ms. Susmita Chatterjee, Adv. Hearing concluded on : 26.02.2026 Judgment on: : 26.02.2026 SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J: 1. Writ petition is entertained placing reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 13th January, 2026 passed on a writ petition being WPA 27327 of 2025 (Md. Masidul Islam vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) wherein this Court 2 held that writ petition before the Single Bench of High Court is maintainable, if Benches under the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal are not available. 2. Petitioners have approached this Court with the present writ petition ventilating common grievance that they were wrongly disallowed in Physical Efficiency Test (PET) in connection with the selection process for filling up the posts of Constable in West Bengal Police for the year 2024. 3. Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, learned advocate representing the petitioners submits that they qualified in written test and were shortlisted and subsequently they were declared fit candidates after participating Physical Measurement Test (PMT). However, in Physical Efficiency Test petitioners failed though petitioners could run 1600 meters which is the requisite distance a candidate is required to run in PET. 4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that as per norms candidate is required to complete 1600 meters by running 08 laps within 06 minute 30 seconds. According to the petitioners they completed the distance prior to 06 minute 30 seconds while running as they were told to cover but candidature of petitioners were disallowed. 3 5. Placing reliance upon an endorsement made on the admit card of petitioner no. 1 it is submitted that when petitioner could run 1400 meters (07 laps) taking 05 minute 44 seconds he could run another 200 meter within the prescribed time i.e. 06 minute 30 seconds. Prayer is made for issuing direction upon the concerned respondent authorities which would permit the petitioner to participate again in PET. 6. Mr. Vimal Kumar Shahi, learned Additional Government Pleader representing the State respondents has opposed this writ petition based on report dated 02nd February, 2026 submitted by Deputy Superintendent of Police (Admin & Law), West Bengal Police Recruitment Board. Report dated 02nd February, 2026 is taken on record. 7. It is disclosed in the report in case of petitioner no. 1 that he appeared in PET on 13th January, 2026 under Burdwan Range Recruitment Board where he completed 07 laps i.e. 1400 meters race in 05 minute 44:477 seconds instead of 08 laps i.e. 1600 meters race in 06 minute 30 seconds as a result whereof he was declared unfit. Similar situation took place in respect of other petitioners resulting in declaring those petitioners unfit in PET. 4 8. Though it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that when petitioners could run shorter distance than 1600 meters in less than 06 minute 30 seconds they could run requisite distance of 1600 meters. 9. However, report dated 02nd February, 2026 reveals different situation and it is pointed out in the said report that none of the petitioners completed 1600 meters run by completing 08 laps and prior to that they had to stop running. 10. The selection process which is being conducted by the concerned respondent authorities for filling up the posts of Constable in West Bengal Police for the year 2024 is a competitive examination where all participants in PET may not qualify. Whether petitioners could run 1600 meters or not within the prescribed time of 06 minute 30 seconds is a factual issue which cannot be delved into while considering the present writ petition. Court needs to rely upon the report furnished by the recruiting authority in order to ascertain whether candidates could run the prescribed distance within the prescribed time or not. 11. As it is disclosed in the report dated 02nd February, 2026 that petitioners could not run the requisite distance within 5 the prescribed time no relief can be granted to the petitioners. 12. Copy of the report dated 02nd February, 2026 is made over to the learned advocate representing the petitioners. 13. Writ petition stands dismissed. 14. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.)