Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Santanu Mandal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 23 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:-
The Hon'ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad
And
The Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas
W.P.S.T. 163 of 2025
Santanu Mandal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Firdous Samim,
Ms. Gopa Biswas,
Mr. Hasanuz Zamam Molla,
Mr. Naman Shah.
For the State : Mr. Amal Kumar Sen, Ld. AAG,
Mr. Amitava Chowdhuri,
Ms. Ashima Das (Sil).
Judgment on : 23.02.2026
Madhuresh Prasad, J.:
1. The writ petitioner was the applicant before the West Bengal
Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short). He participated in a
recruitment process for selection of Wireless Operator in the West
Bengal Police Telecommunications. The advertisement was published
on 13.02.2021 and the process concluded by publication of a final
result on 20.07.2023.
2. An Original Application was filed thereafter in the year 2024. The
Original Application bearing O.A. No. 613 of 2024 was dismissed by
the Tribunal by its order dated 13.12.2024. The same is subject
matter of the present writ proceeding.
3. The contention urged by the learned advocate for the petitioner is that
the petitioner’s award of marks is vitiated. He was awarded 53.17
marks. The cut off marks in his category (Scheduled Caste) was 53.58.
There is thus a thin margin between his marks and the cut off marks.
4. He submits that for one of the Multiple Choice questions, in the ‘C’
series answer booklet, bearing question no. 41 two options were
providing the correct answers (options B & D). Since the process of
assessment contemplated grant of negative marks for incorrect
answers, and there was no single correct option, the petitioner did not
give any response for question no. 41.
5. According to him, the various text books containing opinion of experts
show that both options ‘B’ & ‘D’ were correct answers for question
no.41. The answer booklet, however, wrongly specified option ‘B’ as
the correct answer. The petitioner highlighted this mistake to the
authorities by sending an e-mail on 17.07.2022, and other
complaints. The authorities, however, have not taken any steps
pursuant to the petitioner’s complaint(s). In the above factual
background, the petitioner sought the following reliefs in the O.A.
“The applicant prays for following reliefs:-
2
(i) Direction upon the respondents and their men and agents
to reassess the answer key in respect of the selection process in
the post of Wireless Operator in West Bengal Police
Telecommunications, 2020 most specifically with regard to
question no.41 of C Series booklet and if it is found that the
applicant has been deprived in the selection process due to non-
issuance of mark due to wrong answer key prepared by the
respondent, in that case 1 mark would be awarded for the same
and appointment letter would be issued in favour of the
applicant accordingly under the Scheduled Caste category.
(ii) Direction upon the respondents and their men and agents
to produce the answer script along with the answer key before
the Learned Tribunal to assess the deprivation to the applicant
by not giving 1 mark to him for preparing wrong answer key.
(iii) Direction upon the respondents to produce all the relevant
papers and documents in connection with the instant case before
this Learned Tribunal.
(iv) And to pass such other order or order as the Learned
Tribunal may deem fit and proper.”
6. It is the submission of the learned advocate for the writ petitioner that
the petitioner’s complaint was required to be considered observing
natural justice. He further submits that the Tribunal ought to have
referred the matter to a body of independent experts to assess the
petitioner’s allegation regarding the answer key being wrong.
7. The learned advocate in support of his submission has relied on two
judgments delivered by a coordinate Bench, in the case of West
Bengal Board of Primary Education & Ors. Vs. Prativa Mondal in
MAT 1594 of 2018; and in the case of West Bengal Board of
Primary Education & Ors. Vs. Mousona Mitra & Ors. in MAT 917
of 2024. The bunch of judgments submitted by him contains three
3
other Apex Court’s judgments, however, it is submitted that since
these judgments have already been referred and considered by the
coordinate Bench, the learned Counsel is confining his reliance to the
above noted two judgments rendered by the coordinate Bench. It is
submitted from both these judgments, it is apparent that for resolving
an issue, as raised by the petitioner herein, the matter was referred to
a body of experts, and a large number of candidates benefited from
such an exercise.
8. The learned A.A.G., however, submits that the order of the Tribunal
requires no interference. According to him, the finding of the Tribunal
regarding a belated application is correct. It is not in dispute that the
final result was published on 20.07.2023 and that the Original
Application has been filed much thereafter, only when the petitioner
came to know that he had not emerge successful in the process. It is
further submitted that the scope of judicial review in such matter is
very thin and narrow. It is settled by a catena of judgments, that
based on a mere assertion by an unsuccessful candidate, that a
question, or an answer key is wrong, the Tribunal or the Writ Court
exercising judicial review should not embark on a reassessment of the
questions and the answer key.
9. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the record and the
order of the Tribunal, impugned in the writ petition.
4
10. At the very outset we observed that the examination was
conducted on 21.11.2021. As per submission of the learned Advocate
for the petitioner, e-mail containing a complain regarding question No.
41, which we have noted above, was sent to the West Bengal Police
Recruitment Board (hereinafter in short referred to as the Recruitment
Board) much thereafter, that is on 17.07.2022. The result of the
recruitment process was published a year thereafter that is on
20.07.2023, wherein the petitioner emerged unsuccessful. The
Original Application was filed even later, i.e. more than two years after
the examination, i.e. in the year 2024.
11. In the present case, there are a large number of candidates in
the selection process, therefore, intervening third party rights of a
large number of successful candidates on publication of result is
imminent in case of delayed approach of the applicant/writ petitioner
to a forum or court raising a grievance regarding there being a wrong
question in the written test. We, therefore, have no hesitation in
holding that the petitioner has not acted diligently; rather he has
taken a chance with the alleged wrong question and answer key. It is
only when third party rights have accrued after declaration of result
wherein he emerged unsuccessful, that he has moved the Tribunal.
12. The petitioner in the above noted circumstances was estopped
from challenging the recruitment process by alleging an infirmity as
has been alleged by him. Having taken part in the selection process
and because the result of the process was unpalatable, he could not
5
be permitted to challenge the recruitment process/ result alleging
infirmity in the recruitment process. In this connection, we refer to
decision of the Apex Court in the case of D. Sarojakumari vs. R.
Helen Thilakom and Others reported in (2017) 9 SCC 478. The
Apex Court, with reference to earlier judgments in the case of G.
Sarana v. University of Lucknow reported in (1976) 3 SCC 585,
Madan Lal v. State of J&K reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486, Manish
Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar reported in (2010) 12 SCC 576,
Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi reported in (2013) 11 SCC
309, Madras Institute of Development Studies v. K.
Sivasubramaniyan reported in (2016) 1 SCC 454 has taken note of
the settled legal position that “once a person takes part in the process
of selection and is not found fit for the appointment, the said person is
estopped from challenging the process of selection”.
13. In the case of Prativa Mondal (supra), relied upon by the writ
petitioner, the Coordinate Bench was considering whether award of
marks for attempting a wrong question/option was to be extended
uniformly to all who participated in the examination. The fact of the
said case and issue arising for consideration was, therefore,
essentially different and distinguishable from the present case.
14. Another judgment relied upon by the learned Advocate for the
writ petitioner is judgment of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of
Mousona Mitra (supra), which we are of the view has no application
to the facts and issues arising for consideration in the present case.
6
From judgment of the co-ordinate Bench rendered in the said case it
is apparent that the co-ordinate Bench has taken note of the law
insofar as exercise of judicial review by a High Court for examining
question papers or answer sheet. In such context the co-ordinate
Bench considered various judgments of the Apex Court and held that:
“…points touching upon the academic fields should be left to the
academicians and the High Court should not interfere in a
mechanical manner simply some of the aspiring candidates or
aspiring examinee has approached the Court flagging an issue
on the wrong framing of the question or wrong choice in the
answer keys. Equally, we do not find any absolute embargo in
the aforesaid decisions in exercising the judicial review in this
regard as we think that the real purpose is to bring correctness
in the questions and the answers as the wrong if allowed to
sustain would vitally affect the academic career. Though we feel
that the Single Bench ought not to have ventured deep into the
aforesaid aspect but after noticing that several orders were
passed in the aforesaid writ petition directing the respondent
authorities to file report from the experts on the correctness of the
answer keys which have been duly complied with and
subsequently found the dissenting opinion in this regard and
directed the further expert of committees to evaluate the situation
and submit their opinion and views taken independently to the
Vice-chancellor of the Visva Bharati University who was further
directed to constitute a committee of his choice to take a final
view thereupon, we intend to deal with the questions raised in
the instant appeal.
The Visva Bharati has no role to play in the curriculum nor the
text books so prescribed or taught at the different medium by the
respective States and therefore, subverting the views and the
opinions of the independent committee to the Visva Bharati
University to act as an Apex institution shall percolate a wrong
signal. To put an end to impasse as the large number of
litigations are pouring in the dockets of this court, we feel that
the moment the Writ Court has undertaken such exercise and
the respondent authorities have implemented, the order it would
be proper to constitute a committee comprising of the various
experts of the different universities or the institutions to throw
the light on the issues.”
7
15. It appears from the judgment that the Division Bench noticed
the settled legal position regarding restraint on scrutiny of such
academic matters in exercise of judicial review. However, the Co-
ordinate Bench took notice of the facts and circumstances unique to
the said case, wherein a large number of litigation was pouring in
regarding the examination in question therein. The Co-ordinate Bench
also took notice of the fact that the orders passed by the Single Judge
Bench in the writ petition for filing reports from experts on the
correctness of answer keys was accepted by the authorities and
complied with and implemented by the authorities. The reports filed,
revealed a dissenting opinion as regards the correctness of the answer
keys impugned in the said proceedings. The opinion in the report was
at variance with that of the examining body. Such dissenting view
having emerged on the records in the proceeding, the Division Bench
considered it appropriate to pass order in the above terms.
16. Such facts and circumstances do not arise for consideration in
the present case. Therefore, decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the
case of Mousona Mitra (supra) would have no application to the facts
and issues arising for consideration in the present case. The present
petitioner cannot derive any sustenance from the decision of the Co-
ordinate Bench in the case of Mousona Mitra (Supra) wherein
authorities had implemented order/s passed by the writ Court and
chose not to make an issue.
8
17. In view of above consideration, we are of the opinion that the
reliance placed by the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner on the
two judgments in the case of Prativa Mondal (Supra) and Mousona
Mitra (Supra) are misplaced, having no application in the present
case.
18. The law regarding exercise of judicial review to examine a
controversy regarding the correctness of question papers and answer
sheets stands settled by decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India. In this connection we consider it apposite to refer a series of
decisions rendered by the apex Court, in this regard, which are as
follows:
ï‚· Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. V. State of UP & Ors. reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357, ï‚· U.P. Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Rahul Singh & Anr. reported in (2018 ) 7 SCC 254 ï‚· Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr. reported in (2010 ) 6 SCC 759
19. In the above three judgments, the apex Court consistently
cautioned against exercise of judicial review jurisdiction to look into
the correctness of question papers and answer scripts.
20. In the present case there is no finding of any
Competent/Specialist body/Expert Committee till date regarding
9
question No. 41, or its key answer being incorrect. Only self serving
statement was made by the writ petitioner in this regard.
21. We have seen from the record that the recruitment Board upon
its own scrutiny found five other questions and key answers to be
incorrect and took appropriate steps to resolve the issue to maintain
uniformity in this regard, regarding which no grievance is raised by
the writ petitioner.
22. The writ petitioner has not been able to make out a case for
reassessment regarding correctness of any question or answer key.
23. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the decision of the
Tribunal dated 13.12.2024 passed in O.A. No. 613 of 2024, as the
petitioner has failed to make out any case for the relief as prayed.
24. The writ petition is dismissed.
25. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for,
be supplied to the parties, expeditiously after complying with all
necessary legal formalities.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)
I agree.
(Prasenjit Biswas, J.)
10