Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Shayan Sachin Basu vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 20 May, 2026
Author: Saugata Bhattacharyya
Bench: Saugata Bhattacharyya
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
BEFORE : HON'BLE JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA
W.P.A. 27328 of 2025
SHAYAN SACHIN BASU
VS.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shuvro Prakash Lahiri, Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Naskar, Advocate
Mr. Ranit Mukherjee, Advocate
Mr. Ankan Mondal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vivekananda Bose, Advocate
Ms. Mousumi Banerjee, Advocate
For the PSC : Ms. Piyali Sengupta, Advocate
Mr. Victor Chatterjee, Advocate
Mr. Pramitava Nath, Advocate
Ms. Shreya Bhattacharjee, Advocate
For the High Court
Administration : Mr. Debashis Banerjee, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Jana, Advocate
Hearing concluded on : 12th May, 2026
Judgment on : 20th May, 2026
Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.:
1. Petitioner is an eligible candidate for offering his candidature in West
Bengal Judicial Service Examination (for short ‘WBJS Examination’), 2023
and 2024 presented this writ petition, inter alia, praying for direction to
incorporate three years practice as an advocate being an eligibility criterion
for being considered to be appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in West
2
Bengal Judicial Service. According to petitioner, incorporation of eligibility
criterion of having practice of three years or more as an advocate is required
in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 20 th May, 2025 passed
in All India Judges Association & Others vs. Union of India & Others.
2. Mr. Shuvro Prakash Lahiri, learned advocate representing the petitioner
submits that for WBJS Examination, 2023 and WBJS Examination, 2024,
first an indicative advertisement no. 19/2023 dated 28 th December, 2023
and another advertisement being no. 09/2024 dated 7 th December, 2024
were issued by the concerned authority of Public Service Commission, West
Bengal (for short ‘Commission’). Final advertisements were issued for WBJS
Examination 2023 and 2024 on 13 th August, 2025 by the Commission being
advertisement nos. 19/2023 and 09/2024 respectively.
3. It was pointed out on behalf of petitioner that one of the requisite
qualifications for offering candidature in WBJS Examinations 2023 and
2024 is his/her enrolment as an advocate in the roll of Bar Council of any
State or Union Territory in India on the date of advertisement but it is not
stipulated therein that the candidate is required to have practiced three
years or more as an advocate which is contrary to the judgment of the
Supreme Court delivered in All India Judges Association (supra). In this
regard, reliance is placed on paragraphs 89(vii), 89(viii), 89(ix) and 89(x) of
All India Judges Association (supra). It was submitted absence of
eligibility criterion of minimum three years practice as an advocate in the
advertisements dated 13th August, 2025 for holding WBJS Examinations
3
2023 and 2024 vitiated the process requiring the concerned respondent
authorities to initiate fresh selection process by publishing advertisements
taking note of the observations as contained in All India Judges
Association (supra).
4. It was also argued that indicative advertisements dated 28 th December,
2023 for WBJS Examination, 2023 and subsequent advertisement dated 7 th
December, 2024 for holding WBJS Examination, 2024 are not the formal
advertisements marking initiation of selection process for filling up the post
of Civil Judge (Junior Division). According to petitioner, without disclosing
requisite eligibility criteria if advertisements are made that may not be
treated as formal advertisements requiring the recruiting authority to
publish detailed advertisement stipulating eligibility criteria which may be
construed as commencement of selection process. In the present case
advertisements dated 13th August, 2025 for both the selection processes i.e.
WBJS Examination, 2023 and WBJS Examination, 2024 need to be
regarded as formal advertisements marking commencement of selection
process.
5. It was also contended in Sikkim and Telangana first rules relating to
judicial service examination were amended and then selection process
commenced. In State of West Bengal it was argued that in terms of the
judgment in All India Judges Association (supra) rules relating to judicial
examination for filling up the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) were
required to be amended prior to initiation of selection process.
4
6. According to the petitioner in All India Judges Association (supra)
Supreme Court in paragraph 89(ix) directed incorporation of minimum
years of practice as an advocate being one of the eligibility criteria from the
next recruitment process; it is necessary to incorporate three years practice
as an advocate an eligibility criterion in the advertisements before initiating
selection process i.e. WBJS Examination, 2023 and WBJS Examination,
2024.
7. On the proposition that publication of advertisement prior to selection
process needs to be regarded as commencement of selection process
following judgments were relied upon:-
(i) (2014) 14 SCC 50 (Renu & Ors. vs. District and Sessions Judge,
Tis Hazari & Anr.)
(ii) 2025 SCC OnLine SC 280 (Amrit Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand &
Ors.)
(iii) AIR OnLine 1990 SC 20 (A.P. Public Service Commission,
Hyderabad vs. B. Sarat Chandra)
(iv) (2025) 2 SCC 1 (Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. vs. Rajasthan High
Court & Ors.)
8. Mr. Vivekananda Bose, learned advocate representing the state
respondents submitted that for filling up the post of Civil Judge (Junior
Division) in the West Bengal Judicial Service for the year 2023 & 2024
vacancies were notified by the High Court prior to judgment delivered by the
Supreme Court in All India Judges Association (supra). Vacancies were
notified on 19th October, 2023 for WBJS Examination, 2023 and for WBJS
5
Examination, 2024, notification was issued on 5 th March, 2025 by the High
Court Administration which was addressed to the Principal Secretary to the
Government of West Bengal, Judicial Department whereas judgment in All
India Judges Association (supra) was delivered on 20th May, 2025. In this
regard, reliance is placed on paragraph 89 (ix) of All India Judges
Association (supra) wherein it was held incorporation of eligibility criteria of
minimum years of practice shall not be applicable in cases where the
concerned High Court already initiated the selection process for the post of
Civil Judge (Junior Division) prior to the date of judgment and shall be
applicable only from the next recruitment process.
9. It was contended as the direction was upon the High Court relating to
initiation of selection process for filling up the post of Civil Judge (Junior
Division) by taking necessary steps and in the present case prior to the date
of judgment in All India Judges Association (supra) vacancies were
notified by the High Court, respondent authorities are required to take steps
in terms of directions of the Supreme Court as contained in the judgment
dated 20th May, 2025 from the selection process of 2025 by amending rules.
10. Submissions were made to distinguish ratio of Tej Prakash Pathak
(supra) in the backdrop of Article 229 and Article 234 of the Constitution;
in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) Supreme Court was considering
appointments in the post of Translators in Rajasthan High Court which
comes under the ambit of Article 229 where appointing authority is the
Chief Justice of the High Court whereas in the present case appointments in
6
the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) comes under the purview of Article
234 where appointing authority is Governor of the State in accordance with
rules which apply in such recruitment after consultation with the State
Public Service Commission and with the High Court. According to state
respondents, observation made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 65.1 of
Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) is in the context of different recruitment rules
and the recruitment process as contemplated under Article 229 of the
Constitution which may not apply in the present case.
11. It was argued by Mr. Debashis Banerjee, learned advocate representing
the High Court Administration that posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) are
filled up in terms of Rule 8 of the West Bengal Judicial (Conditions of
Service) Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Rules of 2004’). It
was also submitted that High Court Administration is required to identify
nature of vacancies and number of vacancies to be filled up in a particular
year and same to be notified to the Judicial Department, Government of
West Bengal. Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal in its turn is
required to forward notification of vacancies issued by the High Court to the
Commission for conducting examination upon taking necessary steps. In
this regard, reliance was placed on the judgment reported in (2008) 17 SCC
703 (Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) vs. Uttar Pradesh Public Service
Commission & Others). Method of recruitment in the post of subordinate
judicial service in different States including State of West Bengal was
considered by the Supreme Court and in paragraph 7D in a tabular form it
7
was specified the steps which are required to be taken for filling up the post
of Civil Judge (Junior Division) by direct recruitment. According to High
Court Administration, in said paragraph 7D of Malik Mazhar Sultan (3)
(supra) it is indicated that High Court is required to notify vacancies for
each year which is commencement of selection process for filling up the post
of Civil Judge (Junior Division). As per said Rules of 2004 and the
observations made by the Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3)
(supra) vacancies are required to be notified to the Judicial Department,
Government of West Bengal and thereafter on forwarding such notification
of vacancies commission to take steps by issuing advertisement.
12. Submissions were also made on behalf of commission based on
advertisements published at two stages. First for WBJS Examination 2023
indicative advertisement was issued on 28 th December, 2023 and for WBJS
Examination 2024 indicative advertisement was issued on 7 th December,
2024 and subsequently two separate advertisements were made on 13 th
August, 2025 for WBJS Examination 2023 and WBJS Examination 2024 for
filling up the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) disclosing different
aspects of recruitment procedure. It was contended on behalf of
Commission that advertisements dated 13 th August, 2025 may not be read
in isolation without considering first indicative advertisements dated 28 th
December, 2023 and 7th December, 2024. According to Commission, date of
advertisement may be reckoned with date of indicative advertisements and
subsequent advertisements dated 13 th August, 2025 merely elaborated
8
different aspects of method of recruitment for instance prescribed age limit
of candidate is to be reckoned with date of indicative advertisements not the
date of subsequent advertisements published on 13 th August, 2025 in
connection with both the selection processes namely, WBJS Examination,
2023 and WBJS Examination, 2024.
13. Furthermore, there was clarification as published on 23 rd August, 2025
by concerned authority of Commission clarifying qualification of candidates
and date of advertisement were to be reckoned with date of indicative
advertisements dated 28th December, 2023 and 7th December, 2024. It was
also clarified in the aforesaid clarification dated 23 rd August, 2025 by the
Commission that date of enrolment as an advocate on the roll of Bar
Council of any State or Union Territory in India was to be reckoned with the
dates of indicative advertisements dated 28 th December, 2023 for WBJS
Examination, 2023 and 7th December, 2024 for WBJS Examination, 2024.
Therefore, it was submitted on behalf of Commission indicative
advertisements dated 28th December, 2023 and 7th December, 2024 need
consideration in arriving at conclusion regarding commencement of
selection process for filling up the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) for
the year 2023 & 2024.
14. It was also pointed out in reference to two letters dated 19 th October,
2023 for WBJS Examination, 2023 and another letter dated 5 th March, 2025
for WBJS Examination, 2024 issued by the High Court Administration to
the Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal that in both cases
9
vacancies were first reported vide letters dated 27 th June, 2023 and 19th
April, 2024 which stood modified by subsequent letters dated 19 th October,
2023 and 5th March, 2025 respectively. Stand was also taken on behalf of
Commission that ball was set in motion when on behalf of High Court
Administration vacancies were notified by aforesaid letters which were
addressed to Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal and
subsequently same were received by the Commission.
15. In consideration of the case made out on behalf of petitioner and taking
note of the submissions made on behalf of parties it is found that selection
process for filling up the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) for the year
2023 & 2024 was initiated by the High Court Administration on notifying
vacancies of the respective years to the Judicial Department, Government of
West Bengal. Such exercise on the part of High Court Administration is
necessary in terms of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Malik
Mazhar Sultan (3) (supra). On receipt of vacancy notifications Commission
took steps first by issuing indicative advertisements dated 28 th December,
2023 for WBJS Examination, 2023 and on 7 th December, 2024 for WBJS
Examination, 2024. While issuing such indicative advertisements it was
stated therein that detailed information regarding commencement and
closing date for online applications, age limit, qualifications, scale of pay,
fees to be paid through online and offline mode, scheme and syllabus of the
examination would be available in the Commission’s website shortly. Details
of websites were also indicated in those two indicative advertisements.
10
Subsequently advertisements were made on 13 th August, 2025 disclosing
details of method of recruitment, eligibility criteria of candidates, time
period for submitting application as per indicative advertisements.
Thereafter, a clarification was issued on 23 rd August, 2025 stating therein
that qualification of candidate and date of advertisement were to be
reckoned with date of indicative advertisements i.e. 28 th December, 2023
and 7th December, 2024.
16. In aforesaid backdrop having considered the case made out on behalf of
petitioner this court is tasked to decide whether selection process for filling
up the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) for the year 2023 & 2024
commenced with publication of advertisements on 13 th August, 2025 or not.
17. Reliance was placed on behalf of petitioner on B. Sarat Chandra (supra);
observations made in B. Sarat Chandra (supra) were considered by a later
judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2011) 3 SCC 267 (Pawan
Pratap Singh & Others vs. Reevan Singh & Others). In paragraph 7 of B.
Sarat Chandra (supra) it was observed in reference to the interpretation
attributed by the Tribunal in the context of relevant selection process the
process of selection begins with issuance of advertisement and ends with
preparation of select list for appointment. Same was taken into
consideration in Pawan Pratap Singh (supra) in the context of
determination of seniority between two groups of direct recruits. In
paragraph 45(i) of Pawan Pratap Singh (supra) it was held the effective date
of selection has to be understood in the context of the service rules under
11
which the appointment is made. It may mean the date on which the process
of selection starts with the issuance of advertisement or factum of
preparation of select list, as the case may be. Therefore, in the present case
too method of selection is relevant consideration to trace the initiation of
selection process for recruiting in the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).
18. Paragraphs 89(vii), 89(viii), 89 (ix) and 89 (x) of All India Judges
Association (supra) are quoted below:-
“89. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we issue the following
directions:
xxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx
(vii) All the High Courts and the State Governments in the country
shall amend the relevant service rules to the effect that candidates
desirous of appearing in the examination for the post of Civil Judge
(Junior Division) must have practiced for a minimum period of 3
years to be eligible for the said examination. To fulfill the said
requirement, the Rules shall mandate that the candidate produces a
certificate to that effect duly certified either by the Principal Judicial
Officer of that Court or by an advocate of that Court having a
minimum standing of 10 years duly endorsed by the Principal
Judicial Officer of such a District or a Principal Judicial Officer at
such a station. Insofar as the candidates who are practicing before
the High Courts or this Court, they shall be certified by an advocate
who has a minimum standing of 10 years duly endorsed by an
officer designated by that High Court or this Court. We further direct
that the experience of the candidates which they have gained while
working as Law Clerks with any of the Judges or Judicial Officers in
12the country should also be considered while calculating their total
number of years of practice. The Rules shall also mandate that the
candidates who are appointed to the post of Civil Judge (Junior
Division) pursuant to their selection through the examination must
compulsorily undergo at least 1 year of training before presiding in a
Court;
(viii) It is directed that the number of years of practice completed by
a candidate desirous of appearing in the examination for the post of
Civil Judge (Junior Division) be calculated from the date of their
provisional enrolment/registration with the concerned State Bar
Council;
(ix) It is further directed that the said requirement of minimum years
of practice shall not be applicable in cases where the concerned
High Court has already initiated the selection process for the post of
Civil Judge (Junior Division) prior to the date of this judgment and
shall be applicable only from the next recruitment process; and
(x) All the amendments in terms of the aforesaid direction shall be
carried out by the High Courts within a period of three months from
the date of this judgment and the concerned State Governments
shall consider and approve the same within a further period of three
months.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
19. In paragraph 89(ix) it was observed by the Supreme Court that
requirement of minimum years of practice shall not be applicable in cases
where concerned High Court already initiated the selection process for the
post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) prior to the date of this judgment and
shall be applicable from the next recruitment process. Taking note of
method of recruitment as directed by the Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar
13
Sultan (3) (supra) High Court is required to forward notification of vacancy
on identifying number of vacancies and nature of vacancies to the Judicial
Department, Government of West Bengal and subsequently, Judicial
Department, Government of West Bengal is required to forward notification
of vacancy to the Commission. In the present case it was disclosed in the
affidavit affirmed on behalf of High Court Administration that for WBJS
Examination, 2023 vacancies were notified vide letter dated 19 th October,
2023 of the Registrar General and for WBJS Examination, 2024 vacancies
were notified vide letter dated 5th March, 2025 of the Registrar General
whereas judgment was delivered in All India Judges Association (supra) on
20th May, 2025. Normally selection process is set in motion with issuance of
advertisement but method of selection process in the present case is a
relevant consideration when in paragraph 89(ix) of All India Judges
Association (supra) it was specifically held that where the concerned High
Court already initiated selection process for filling up the post of Civil Judge
(Junior Division) prior to the judgment dated 20 th May, 2025 revised
eligibility criteria of minimum three years practice as an advocate shall be
applicable from the next recruitment process.
20. In terms of Article 234 of the Constitution appointments in the post of
Civil Judge (Junior Division) needs to be made by the Governor of the State
in accordance with rules made by the Governor after consultation with the
State Public Service Commission and with the High Court exercising
jurisdiction in relation to such State. In addition thereto Supreme Court in
14
paragraph 89(vii) of All India Judges Association (supra) directed all the
High Courts and State Governments shall amend the relevant service rules
to the effect that candidates desirous of appearing in the examination for
the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) must have practiced for a minimum
period of three years to be eligible for the said examination. Therefore,
before incorporation of eligibility criterion of having minimum three years
practice as an advocate for being considered to the post of Civil Judge
(Junior Division) recruitment rules require amendment. It is disclosed in the
affidavit affirmed on behalf of Commission that vide letter dated 21 st
November, 2025 modified draft recruitment rules in terms of the judgment
of All India Judges Association (supra) was forwarded to the Principal
Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Judicial Department. High Court
Administration as well as concerned State authorities are to finalize
amended recruitment rules regulating recruitment to the West Bengal
Judicial Service and suitable notification to be issued in this regard strictly
in terms of the directions as contained in judgment dated 20 th May, 2025 of
the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association (supra) which would
enable the authorities to conduct recruitment to the post of Civil Judge
(Junior Division) in West Bengal Judicial Service by following the dicta of
Apex Court from the next selection process.
21. Reliance was placed on Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) on behalf of
petitioner. In paragraphs 65.2 and 65.3 of Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) Five
Judge Bench of the Supreme Court taking note of the ratio in K. Manjusree
15
vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512 and State of
Haryana vs. Subhas Chander Marwaha reported in (1974) 3 SCC 220
reference was answered that application of ratio of above two judgments are
in two separate fields. Subhas Chander Marwaha (supra) deals with right of
appointment from select list whereas K. Manjusree (supra) deals with right
to be placed in select list. Much reliance was placed on paragraph 65.1 of
Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) wherein it was observed that recruitment
process commenced from issuance of advertisement calling for applications
and ends with filling up of vacancies and it was argued that 13 th August,
2025 needs to be considered formal commencement of selection process for
recruiting Civil Judge (Junior Division) for the year 2023 & 2024. But
different issue invites attention of this court while deciding present writ
petition. In the context of relevant recruitment rules applicable for
appointment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in West Bengal Judicial Service
after number and nature of vacancies were intimated to Judicial
Department of Government of West Bengal for recruitment for the year 2023
& 2024 incorporation of eligibility criterion of three years legal practice in
said selection process as per dicta of All India Judges Association (supra)
is indispensable or not. Answer is found in judgment of All India Judges
Association (supra) in paragraph 89(ix) as quoted above. Initiation of
selection process by the High Court in terms of All India Judges
Association (supra) is forwarding of vacancies (number and nature) to the
State authorities taking note of manner of selection process. At the cost of
repetition reliance is placed on Pawan Pratap Singh (supra) wherein
16
Supreme Court placing reliance on B. Sarat Chandra (supra) held in
paragraph 45(i) that effective date of selection process has to be understood
in the context of service rules under which the appointment is made.
22. In Renu (supra) and Amrit Yadav (supra) Supreme Court laid emphasis
on the contents of advertisement for public appointment. It was held in
those judgments that advertisement to be published prior to public
appointment must disclose number of post available for selection and
recruitment, qualifications and other eligibility criteria for such post,
schedule of recruitment process and the rules under which the selection is
to be made. Requirement of including these aspects in the advertisement
prior to public appointment was reiterated in paragraph 19 of Amrit Yadav
(supra). On conjoint reading of indicative advertisements and subsequent
advertisements dated 13th August, 2025 for conducting WBJS Examination
2023 & 2024 it ought not to be deduced that the aforesaid advertisements
lack particulars which are required to be disclosed as per dicta of Renu
(supra) and Amrit Yadav (supra).
23. Petitioner is an eligible candidate who could have offered candidature
pursuant to advertisements for participating in WBJS Examination 2023 &
2024 but chose not to participate in selection process due to non-
incorporation of eligibility criterion of three years practice as an advocate
thereby prayed for direction to amend eligibility criteria before initiating
fresh selection process for the year 2023 & 2024. Court finds it apt to quote
paragraph 44 of three Judge Bench judgment of this court reported in 2019
17
SCC OnLine Cal 381 delivered on batch of matters first one being
Managing Committee, Kadamtala High Madrasah vs. State of West
Bengal & Ors.:-
“44. Law being fairly well-settled that even an eligible candidate,
who might have been found suitable by the selectors and thus
selected, has no vested right of appointment, the proposition seems
to me to be unsound that a candidate who wishes to take part in a
selection process and might have offered his candidature or even
taken part in such process without a final panel/merit list having
been prepared, could claim a better right (than candidates selected)
that the selection process must not only be taken forward but that
too in accordance with the rules in force on the date the process
commenced, notwithstanding that such rules may have been
amended or repealed during the continuance of such process. That a
candidate for a public post has a right to claim fair consideration of
his candidature admits of no doubt, but to enforce a right, if at all,
the minimum that is required of him is to show that he has been
empaneled/enlisted. However, so long the amendment that is
effected in the governing rules and is sought to be enforced soon
after the selection process has commenced or even in the midst
thereof does not impair his right of participation and also does not
impede a fair consideration of his candidature, it is difficult to
comprehend on what basis could a candidate for a public post claim
that the process must move forward without the amendments,
insofar as they are relevant, being enforced and to take the selection
process to its logical conclusion on the basis of the unamended
rules. If it were a case a repeal of the earlier rules by a new set of
rules, and initiation of the selection process based on the former not
being saved by the latter, the recruitment process itself has to be
aborted and commenced afresh in the tune with the new rules.”
18
24. Observations made by Justice Dipankar Datta in paragraph 44 while
concurring with the view expressed by Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty made
it amply clear that candidate not being empaneled and selected is not
authorized to claim selection process must move forward without the
amendments and to take the selection process to its logical conclusion on
the basis of unamended rules. In Managing Committee, Kadamtala High
Madrasah (supra) desirous candidates were seeking conclusion of selection
process in terms of unamended rules wherein it was observed in paragraph
44 that candidate does not possess right to claim completion of selection
process in terms of particular recruitment rules, at best candidate for public
post has right to claim fair consideration of his candidature in the event he
is empaneled/enlisted. Here instead of possessing requisite
qualification/eligibility criteria petitioner chose not to participate in the
selection process unless eligibility criteria is amended in terms of the
observations made by the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association
(supra), though it was made clear by the Supreme Court in paragraph
89(vii) that High Courts and State Governments shall first amend the
relevant service rules to the effect that candidates desirous of appearing in
the examination for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) must have
practiced for a minimum period of three years to be eligible for the said
examination. It was also held in paragraph 89(ix) that requirement of
minimum years of practice shall not be applicable in cases where concerned
High Court has already initiated the selection process for the post of Civil
19
Judge (Junior Division) prior to date of the judgment. In terms of the
observations made by the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association
(supra) service rules are required to be amended for incorporation of
eligibility criteria for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and in this
regard steps have been taken by the respondent authorities as disclosed in
the affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission. But when steps were taken
by the respondent authorities including High Court for initiating selection
process prior to 20th May, 2025 it was open to the petitioner to participate in
the selection process being an eligible candidate instead of seeking initiation
of fresh selection process on amending service rules; such claim of the
candidate was negated in Managing Committee, Kadamtala High
Madrasah (supra).
25. In aforesaid conspectus steps taken by the concerned respondent
authorities for conducting WBJS Examinations, 2023 & 2024 for recruiting
Civil Judge (Junior Division) are not interfered with and the writ petition is
dismissed. However respondent authorities are directed to conduct selection
process following the observations and directions contained in All India
Judges Association (supra) from the next year by incorporating requisite
eligibility criteria as per direction of the Supreme Court.
26. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the
parties, upon usual undertakings.
(SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
