ASHA ROY vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

1

Form J(2)
Sl.No.5
Sc
In the High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side

Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Roy



WPA 23364 OF 2026





Smt. Asha Roy


Vs.

The State of West Bengal& Ors.

For the petitioner : Mr. Rajarshi Basu, Adv.
Mr. Malay Bhattacharyya, Adv.



For the Respondent State : Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, Ld. AGP.

For the Respondent WBJEEB : Mr. Amitava Chaudhuri, Adv.
Mr. N. Roy, Adv.



Heard on : September 1, 2026
Judgment on : September 1, 2026
[ In Court ]
Aniruddha Roy, J. :




1. 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.
2. Affidavit-of-service, filed in Court today, is taken on record.
WPA 23364 of 2026
A.Roy, J.

2

Facts:
3. 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 .
4. 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 :
‘SHE BELONGS TO GENERAL PWD CATEGORY
HER PWD CERTIFICATE ALSO CORRECT BUT AS
PER E COUNSELLING GUIDE LINE HER OBTAINED
PERCENTAGE OF MARKS IS INSUFFICIENT THAT
IS 38 PERCENT AS PER GUIDELINE TOTAL
QUALIFYING PERCENTAGE IN 40 THAT IS WHY
HER SEAT IS CANCELLED’

Submissions :

5. 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.
WPA 23364 of 2026
A.Roy, J.

3

6. 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 .
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Mr. Amitabha Chowdhury, learned Advocate for the Board submits
that, the primary responsibility of the Board is up to the allotment of
WPA 23364 of 2026
A.Roy, J.

4

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.
11. 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.
Decision:


12. 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.
WPA 23364 of 2026
A.Roy, J.

5

13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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
WPA 23364 of 2026
A.Roy, J.

6

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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Accordingly, the writ petition, WPA 23364 of 2026 stands
dismissed , without any order as to costs.
20. Parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly obtained
from the official website of this Court.

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


(Aniruddha Roy, J.)

WPA 23364 of 2026
A.Roy, J.