Smt. Asha Roy vs The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Aniruddha Roy, J. :

Upon urgency being shown and since the regular determination has been assigned before this Bench, the matter has been directed to appear in the list today and has been taken up for consideration after being satisfied with the urgency involved therein.

Affidavit-of-service, filed in Court today, is taken on record.

The writ petitioner is an aspirant for ANM(R) & GNM-2026 (the selection process). Page 38 of the writ petition, Annexure-P4 having been impugned in this writ petition shows that, the General Merit Rank of the petitioner (GMR)(GMN) is 43390 and the General Merit Rank (GMR) (AMN (R)) is 41697.

Pursuant to the notification for holding E-Counselling for the selection process dated August 13, 2026 the petitioner has participated in the E-Counselling. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected with a remark as follows :

Mr. Rajarsri Basu, Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has referred to Clause 2.0 nomenclatured as ‘Registration’ at page 22 to the writ petition, which is part of the said Notification for E-Counselling and submits that for reserved categories, the eligibility qualification was 35% to be obtained by a candidate in 10+2 educational set up and 40 % for General/EWS.

Mr. Basu submits that, the petitioner has participated in the subject selection process as General PwD category (Person with Disability). Mr. Basu submits that, since the petitioner has participated in PwD category she is different from General /EWS category. He submits that the people suffering from disability, as the petitioner in the instant case, are also socially backward and therefore at the very least, are entitled to the same benefits as given to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates. In support, he has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court In the matter of : Aryan Raj -vs. Chandigarh Administration & Ors., reported at (2021) 19 SCC 813.

Mr. Basu, learned Advocate for the petitioner further submits that, the selection authority has also admitted that, the petitioner had secured 38% which is above 35% as mentioned in Clause 2.2 of the E-Counselling Notification at page 22 to the writ petition and, therefore, 35% being the qualifying percentage for reserved category, the candidature of the petitioner has been wrongly and illegally rejected.

Learned Advocate for the petitioner further submits that, once a rank is allotted, a right has been created in favour of the petitioner to receive an admission for the course.

In the light of the above, the petitioner claims quashing of the decision of rejection of the authority and admission of the petitioner in the course.

Mr. Amitabha Chowdhury, learned Advocate for the Board submits that, the primary responsibility of the Board is up to the allotment of seats, which has already been done by the Board in the instant case. The subsequent responsibility is upon the concerned college authority who has rejected the candidature, as would be evident from the signatures of the Reporting Centre Incharge and Document Verification Officer from the said rejection document at page 38 to the writ petition. Since, the college authority is not impleaded, the writ petition suffers from non-joinder of parties.

Mr. Amitabha Chaudhury, learned Advocate for the Board then refers to the document at page 37 to the writ petition and submits that, the petitioner had participated as a General PwD candidate for which there was no separate qualifying percentage fixed in the 10+2 examination and as such, the petitioner had to qualify with 40% marks. In support, Mr. Chaudhury has also relied upon the eligibility criteria of a candidate mentioned under Clause 3.1 of the E-Counselling Notification at page 23 to the writ petition, which shows for the purpose of admission minimum educational qualification should be at least 40% marks in aggregate in 10+2 examination for the petitioner.

After considering the rival contentions of parties and on perusal of the materials on record and specifically on reading the terms and conditions from the Notification For E-Counselling at page 20, Annexure-P2 to the writ petition, it appears to this Court that no qualifying marks has been defined for General PwD candidates.

Clause 2.0 at page 22 of the E-Counselling Notification specifies for the purpose of Registration only, a General/EWS candidate has to secure 40% and a reserved candidate has to secure 35% in 10+2 examination.

Clause 3.1 at page 23 of the E-Counselling Notification defines the eligibility criteria for admission, which defines that, the candidate at least must secure 40% marks in aggregate in 10+2 examination.

On a meaningful and harmonious reading of the Clauses from the E-Counselling Notification this Court is of the firm view that, these two stages viz. Registration and Admission are separate and different from each other and they stand on their respective independent footings. For the purpose of Registration in the selection process, as provided in Clause 2.0 the eligibility criteria, for General/EWS candidate is 40% and reserved categories 35% in the 10+2 examination. With such qualification if a candidate is registered then only he or she shall be considered further for admission where he or she must qualify with 40% marks in aggregate in the 10+2 examination. The two expressions Registration and Admission cannot be equated together, as they are distinct and different from each other and two different stages of the selection process.

In a selection process the rule of the game should be fixed. The rule of such game neither can be changed by the selectors in the midway nor can be interpreted or read in a liberal manner, as in either of the situations there will be a breach of principle of equality as guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Inasmuch as, the stipulations under the E-Counselling Notification is not under challenge. When a well defined rule of the game is there, nothing can be imported therein nor can be excluded therefrom. It has to be read strictly, as it is.

In the matter of : Aryan Raj (supra), the rule of the game was not under consideration. In the instant case, the rule of the game being there, the ratio laid down in the said judgment would not apply in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Court is of the firm and considered view that, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected in accordance with law and such rejection is just and lawful. This Court shall not interfere with such rejection.

Accordingly, the writ petition, WPA 23364 of 2026 stands dismissed, without any order as to costs.

Parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly obtained from the official website of this Court.

Photostat certified of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously.