SHAMIM AKHTAR vs THE REGISTRAR GENERAL AND ORS.

WBCHCO0026532026


s.seal
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
APOT/136/2026
IA NO:GA/1/2026
SHAMIM AKHTAR
VERSUS
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL AND ORS.
Mr. S. E. Huda, Adv.
Ms. Nabeela Akbar, Adv.
Ms. Saima Amin, Adv.
Ms. Anwesha Guha Ray, Adv.
Mr. Sk. Aptabuddin, Adv.
…for the Appellant

Mr. Jaydip Kar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Debashis Banerjee Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Jana, Adv.
…for Respondent Nos.1 & 2
Mr. Ajit Kr. Mishra, AGP
Dr. N. G. Khaitan, Adv.
Mr. Raj Mohan Chattoraj, Adv.
...for the State
CORAM: RAVINDRA VITHALRAO GHUGE, CJ
&
OM NARAYAN RAI, J
Date: 13-11-2026

2
ORDER (Per Court)
1. By this Appeal, the Appellant/Petitioner seeks to assail
the judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 28.04.2026,
delivered in WPO/102/2025 by which the Petitioner’s Petition was
dismissed.
2. On 13.10.2026, we had passed the following order:-
“1. The Learned Advocate representing the High
Court submits that the State Government has introduced
a fresh 100 point reservation policy qua the OBC, in the
light of the S.L.P filed by the State before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court posing a challenge to the judgment of this
nd
Court dated 22 May, 2024 in W.P.O. 60 of 2011 (Amal
Chandra Das v. State of West Bengal & Ors.) . The said
SLP was withdrawn by the State. As a consequence, the
selection process which is the subject matter of this Writ
Petition, which has passed the first phase and is
approaching the second phase, has been interjected by the
said new reservation policy, meaning thereby, that the
IA NO:GA/1/2026
APOT/136/2026,

3
new reservation policy has now been made applicable to
the same selection process, albeit , from the second phase.
2. We find that the issue whether such new
reservation policy could be made applicable to a selection
process, which is already underway having completed the
first phase and approaching the second phase, is a matter
of circumspection. Let the Learned Advocates take
instructions and address the Court on the next date. If
advised, the Learned Advocate for the High Court may
even consult the Learned Advocate General for guidance.
th
3. List on 13 November, 2026 in the urgent
supplementary list .”
3. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
High Court submits on instructions that the issue taken up by this
Court in paragraph no. 2 of the above reproduced order, could be
dealt with by the High Court on the Administrative Side. The
Learned Advocate for the Petitioner accepts the view expressed by
the Learned Senior Counsel for the High Court and submits that,
IA NO:GA/1/2026
APOT/136/2026,

4
firstly, the said issue was not raised by the Petitioner and,
secondly, the High Court may consider the said aspect on its
Administrative Side.
4. In view of the above statements, the issue taken up by
this Court as set out in paragraph 2, may be taken up by the High
Court on its administrative side and, therefore, we are not
considering the said issue on the judicial side.
5. In the above backdrop, the challenge of the Appellant
(original Petitioner) to the order of the Learned Single Judge dated
28.04.2026 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned order’), is
restricted to the controversy concerning question no. 70, which
was a part of the question paper in the LDA/24 Examination in
booklet series ‘B’, which reads as under:-
“In a family, there are 7 sisters and each sister has 1
brother. How many children are there in total in this
family?
(A) 7 (B) 8
(C) 14 (D) 15”
IA NO:GA/1/2026
APOT/136/2026,

5
6. The contention of the Petitioner/Appellant is that the
provisional answer key indicated the correct answer at clause (B).
There were several objections raised with regard to various aspects
of the question paper as a part of the objections called for by the
examining body. One objection was with regard to question no. 70.
After considering the objections, an alteration was made in the
answer key to question no. 70, by indicating the correct answer at
serial no. (C) instead of the answer at serial no. (B).
7. While dealing with the above aspect, we find that the
Learned Single Judge had taken into account the said controversy
while reproducing the said question below paragraph 2. As regards
the objections raised, the Learned Single Judge has recorded the
submissions of the parties in paragraph nos. 3 to 9 which read as
under :-
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that
by any stretch of reasoning, the answer to the subject
question has to be option 'B', i.e., eight children and not
option 'C', i.e., 14 children.
4. Learned advocate relies upon various answers
IA NO:GA/1/2026
APOT/136/2026,

6
given to this question generated by Artificial Intelligence and
submits that on each and every occasion, the answer has
been found to be eight children.
5. It has been submitted that the authority sought
for objection after publication of the preliminary answer key.
The same was not mentioned in the advertisement for
recruitment. It has been submitted that after publication of
the final answer key, there were several objections filed by
the candidates. The authority did not consider such
objection. It has been argued that if objection has been
considered after publication of the preliminary answer key,
then objection ought to have been considered after
publication of the final answer key also.
6. It has been submitted that the report filed by
the authority mentions about bare facts without any
supporting document. In the absence of any document, the
Court may not be in a position to ascertain as to how the
answer to the subject question may have been assessed.
7. It has been contended that the reasoning given
by the Hon'ble Committee for not considering the objections
which were raised after publication of the final answer key
IA NO:GA/1/2026
APOT/136/2026,

7
that even if one mark is awarded to the candidate, then they
would not have come within the zone of consideration, will
not be applicable in the case of the petitioner as he had only
one mark short of the qualifying mark.
8. Prayer has been made to appoint an expert to
assess the disputed question.
9. Learned advocate representing the respondents
opposes the prayer of the petitioner, Report by the Registrar
(Recruitment and Management) has been relied upon. The
report mentions that the provisional answer key was
published and objections were invited from the candidates to
be submitted within a stipulated time period. As many as
eight objections were received in respect of the subject
question. The views and objections were forwarded to the
paper setter and the same was placed before the
Recruitment and Promotion (High Court) Committee for
consideration. After considering the views and opinion of the
paper setter, the Committee arrived at final conclusion that
the correct answer to the subject question will be option 'C,
i.e., fourteen children and not option 'B', i.e., eight children
as indicated in the provisional answer key.
IA NO:GA/1/2026
APOT/136/2026,

8
8. While drawing its conclusions, the Learned Single
Judge recorded in paragraph nos. 10, 11 and 12 of the impugned
order, as under :-
“10. The report further mentions that even after
publication of the final answer key, several representations
and objections were submitted by candidates but the same
could not be considered as per the decision. taken by the
Hon'ble Committee. It has been mentioned that at every
stage of the selection process, deliberation was made by the
Hon'ble Recruitment and Promotion Committee and an
approval was obtained from the Hon'ble Chief Justice. It has
been contended that the selection process is being
conducted strictly in accordance with the rules framed.
11. Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf
of both the parties and on perusal of the materials placed
before this Court, it appears that the petitioner has not been
able to clear the qualifying marks to appear in the second
phase of the recruitment process. The objection raised by
the petitioner was duly considered by the authority and the
stand of the petitioner has been negated by the Committee.
IA NO:GA/1/2026
APOT/136/2026,

9
The said decision was duly approved by the Hon'ble Chief
Justice.
12. The submission made by the petitioner that
documents in support of the report have not been annexed
does not help the petitioner in any manner. In a public
recruitment process, there may be several documents that
may be required to be considered by the authority. Each and
every document is not required to be made public. The fact
that the objection filed by the petitioner was duly considered
is enough for a job aspirant. No case has been made out by
the petitioner that the process adopted by the authority is
illegal or arbitrary. A job aspirant has to accept the final
decision taken by the recruiting authority. A candidate
appearing in a recruitment process cannot expect the
recruiting authority to act as per his dictates.”
9. It is well-settled that the Court cannot assume the role
of an academic expert. While dealing with the issue as to which
answer could be the correct answer to a particular question, it has
to be left to the wisdom of an expert body. It has also been
recorded in the impugned order, paragraphs of which have been
IA NO:GA/1/2026
APOT/136/2026,

10
reproduced above, that the objections were dealt with by the
Committee and it was finally concluded that the option at serial
no. (C) would be the correct answer to question no. 70 of booklet
series B.
10. We find that the question pertains to testing the
common sense of the appearing candidate/examinee. It was an
issue of a family having 7 sisters and the test was as to how many
members would comprise the family if each of those 7 sisters had
one brother. If there was one son in such family to a couple having
7 daughters, obviously each of those daughters/ inter se sisters,
would have had one brother, the lone son in the family. He would
have become the solitary brother to each of such 7 sisters. This
being a very simple question, the option at clause (B) indicating 8
children in the family, was the correct answer. If each sister had
one individual brother, these sisters being biologically related to
each other, would find such solitary brother to be a biological
brother to each of them. Therefore, each sister could say that she
has one brother. To include 7 brothers, it would have to be
presumed that each sister had one individual brother, who was not
a biological brother to any of the other 6 biological sisters.
IA NO:GA/1/2026
APOT/136/2026,

11
Nevertheless, the Committee approved option (C) as being the
correct answer which indicated 14 children in the family.
11. Be that as it may, we are now not called upon to deal
with this issue, since the Learned Senior Counsel representing the
High Court is instructed to convey to us that the High Court would
now treat both the answers, at clause (B) and (C), as being the
correct answers. There are 291 posts of Lower Division Assistants
which are vacant with the Original and Appellate Sides of the High
Court and there is a desperate need to fill up these posts at the
earliest. Therefore, all those candidates who may have offered the
answer available at option (B) or option (C), would be treated as
having answered the question correctly. Consequentially, each of
the candidates who have appeared for the LDA/24 Examination
and who have offered the answer at options (B) or (C), would be
granted one mark which was allocated to the correct answer and
all such examinees who have opted for answers at clauses (B) and
(C), would be evaluated with the addition of one mark as against
question no. 70 of booklet series B.
12. In view of the above statements made on instructions,
IA NO:GA/1/2026
APOT/136/2026,

12
the present Appeallant who has suffered deduction of one mark
under the principle of negative marking, setting his score at 49,
would now actually stand to gain one mark for a correct answer to
question no. 70 and there would be no deletion of one mark. He
would now secure 51 marks out of 100 instead of 49, and would
qualify for the next round.

13. The Learned Advocate for the Appellant/Petitioner
submits on instructions that he is satisfied and this Appeal may be
disposed off in the light of the above statement.
14. In view of the above, this Appeal is disposed off by
recording that all those candidates who may have offered answers
at option (B) or (C) to question no. 70 of booklet series B, would be
treated as having correctly answered question no. 70. Their results
are directed to be reconsidered and with the addition of one mark
and by doing away with the deletion of one mark towards the
negative marking for a wrong answer, be republished. All
qualifying candidates, accordingly, would become eligible for the
next stage of the examination, which is a written test.
Consequentially, the impugned order shall lose it’s efficacy.
IA NO:GA/1/2026
APOT/136/2026,

13
15. All pending Interim Applications would not survive
and stand disposed off .
( OM NARAYAN RAI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE)
(CHIEF JUSTICE )
IA NO:GA/1/2026
APOT/136/2026,