The Calcutta High Court has delivered a significant judgment reinforcing the principle of transparency in public recruitment processes. In a writ petition challenging the non-disclosure of marks and categories in the shortlist for Physical Measurement and Efficiency Tests for West Bengal Police Constables, the Court held that withholding such information violates the right to a fair and transparent selection process. This ruling establishes a critical precedent for all recruitment authorities to ensure disclosure of essential particulars at every stage of selection, particularly when subsequent tests depend on written examination performance.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arose from a recruitment notification dated 5 March 2024 for the post of Constable in the West Bengal Police. Following a written examination conducted under the West Bengal Police (Recruitment of Constables) Rules, 2024, the recruitment authority published a shortlist of 60,178 candidates for the Physical Measurement Test (PMT) and Physical Efficiency Test (PET). However, the list omitted two crucial details: the marks obtained by candidates in the written examination and their respective categories (such as Unreserved, SC, OBC-A, OBC-B).
The petitioners, who participated in the written test under various categories, contended that the non-disclosure of these details undermined transparency and fairness in the selection process. They argued that candidates had a right to know their marks and categories before proceeding to the next stages of selection.
Procedural History
The petitioners approached the Calcutta High Court under its constitutional writ jurisdiction, seeking a direction to the recruitment authority to disclose the marks and categories of candidates in the shortlist. The matter was heard at length, with both parties presenting their arguments based on conflicting Supreme Court precedents.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought the following reliefs:
- A direction to the recruitment authority to publish the marks obtained by candidates in the written examination
- Disclosure of the categories of candidates in the shortlist
- Any other appropriate writ or order to ensure transparency in the selection process
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether the recruitment authority was obligated to disclose the marks obtained by candidates in the written examination and their respective categories before conducting the PMT and PET. The Court had to determine whether such disclosure was necessary to maintain transparency and fairness in the selection process, particularly in light of conflicting judicial precedents.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Anindya Lahiri, contended that non-disclosure of marks and categories violated the principles of transparency and natural justice. They relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 719), which emphasized the importance of transparency in public recruitments. The petitioners argued that candidates had a right to know their performance in the written examination to assess their eligibility for subsequent stages.
For the Respondent/State
The State, represented by Additional Advocate General Mr. Amal Kumar Sen, opposed the writ petition. The State contended that disclosure of marks before the viva voce could create a bias among interviewers and disrupt the level playing field for candidates. The State relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Harkirat Singh Ghuman v. Punjab and Haryana High Court and Others ((2022) 19 SCC 787), which held that disclosure of marks before the viva voce was not necessary in certain recruitment processes.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the legal principles governing transparency in recruitment processes and the applicability of the cited precedents. The analysis focused on the following key aspects:
-
Distinction Between Recruitment Processes: The Court noted that the recruitment process in Harkirat Singh Ghuman involved only a written examination followed by a viva voce. In contrast, the present case involved multiple stages: a written examination, followed by PMT, PET, and finally a viva voce. The Court observed that the written examination was the basis for participation in the PMT and PET, and candidates who did not secure sufficient marks would be excluded from these stages. Thus, the rationale in Harkirat Singh Ghuman did not apply to the present case.
-
Right to Transparency: The Court emphasized that transparency is a fundamental requirement in public recruitments to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrariness. The non-disclosure of marks and categories at the stage of PMT and PET would deprive candidates of the opportunity to verify their eligibility and challenge any discrepancies. The Court held that such non-disclosure could lead to bona fide candidates being unfairly excluded from the selection process.
-
Precedential Analysis: The Court distinguished Harkirat Singh Ghuman on the grounds that the recruitment process in that case did not involve intermediate stages like PMT and PET. The Court observed that in the present case, the written examination was the sole criterion for determining eligibility for PMT and PET. Therefore, disclosure of marks was essential to ensure that candidates could participate in these stages with full knowledge of their performance.
"In Harkirat Singh Ghuman (supra), there was no other phase of selection process in between written examination and viva voce. In the present case, in between written test and viva voce, there are two other phases, namely PMT and PET. If candidates do not find place in the list prior to PMT and PET and if they do not come within the zone of consideration based on merit which is assessed on the basis of written test, they will not be permitted to appear in PMT and PET."
-
Practical Implications: The Court considered the practical implications of accepting the State's argument that disclosure should occur only after the viva voce. The Court noted that by the time the viva voce was conducted, the PMT and PET would have already been completed. Thus, non-disclosure of marks before these stages would effectively deny candidates the opportunity to participate in the selection process, even if they had secured sufficient marks in the written examination.
-
Statutory Compliance: The Court also examined the West Bengal Police (Recruitment of Constables) Rules, 2024, which governed the recruitment process. The Court held that the Rules did not explicitly prohibit the disclosure of marks and categories before the PMT and PET. Therefore, the recruitment authority was obligated to ensure transparency by disclosing these details.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the recruitment authority to publish the list of selected candidates for the PMT and PET, disclosing the marks awarded to each candidate in the written examination and their respective categories. The Court mandated that this disclosure be made within seven days from the date of the judgment. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Transparency Is Non-Negotiable in Multi-Stage Recruitments
The judgment establishes that recruitment authorities must ensure transparency at every stage of the selection process, particularly when subsequent stages depend on performance in earlier stages. Practitioners should note the following key takeaways:
- Disclosure of Marks and Categories: Recruitment authorities must disclose marks and categories of candidates before conducting any stage of selection that depends on written examination performance. This ensures that candidates can verify their eligibility and challenge any discrepancies.
- Distinction Based on Recruitment Process: The applicability of precedents like Harkirat Singh Ghuman depends on the structure of the recruitment process. Courts will distinguish cases where intermediate stages (such as PMT and PET) exist between the written examination and viva voce.
Right to Fair Selection Process
The judgment reinforces the principle that candidates have a right to a fair and transparent selection process. This right includes:
- Access to Performance Details: Candidates must be provided with their marks and categories at every stage of the selection process to enable them to make informed decisions about their participation.
- Judicial Review of Recruitment Processes: Courts will intervene to ensure that recruitment processes comply with principles of natural justice and transparency, particularly when non-disclosure could lead to unfair exclusion of candidates.
Actionable Takeaways for Practitioners
- For Recruitment Authorities: Ensure that all shortlists for subsequent stages of selection disclose marks and categories of candidates. Failure to do so may invite judicial scrutiny and potential directions to rectify the process.
- For Candidates: Candidates aggrieved by non-disclosure of marks or categories in recruitment processes can approach courts for appropriate relief, relying on this judgment to argue for transparency.
- For Legal Advisors: When advising clients on recruitment-related disputes, emphasize the importance of transparency and the distinction between recruitment processes with and without intermediate stages.
