Failure to challenge a provisional merit list bars subsequent challenge to the final selection list.

The petitioner participated in the recruitment process for Fire Operators in the West Bengal Fire Services pursuant to Advertisement No. 15 of 2018, applying as an OBC-B candidate.

The advertisement required candidates to possess and submit caste certificates issued on or before the closing date for applications, i.e., 3 July 2018.

Although the petitioner’s OBC-B certificate was issued on 29 March 2019, he participated in the subsequent stages of recruitment, including the physical tests and interview.

Following litigation in relation to the recruitment process, a Co-ordinate Bench directed the Public Service Commission, West Bengal (“PSC”) to scrutinise caste and other certificates and to ensure that they had been issued by the closing date.

In the provisional merit list dated 3 March 2023, the petitioner was treated as an unreserved candidate because his OBC-B certificate was issued after the prescribed date; his candidature was also marked as ineligible on account of overage in the unreserved category.

Although objections were invited, the petitioner did not object to the treatment of his candidature.

The final list was published on 6 April 2023.

The petitioner thereafter filed O.A. No. 398 of 2023 before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, seeking quashing of the final list and recognition of his OBC-B status. The Tribunal rejected the claim, leading to the present writ petition.

In the meantime, appointments had been issued to a substantial number of selected candidates, and many had joined service.

Whether the petitioner’s OBC-B certificate, issued after the closing date for applications but before the physical and interview stages, could be accepted to grant him the benefit of reservation in the recruitment process.

Whether the petitioner could challenge the final select list despite failing to object to the provisional merit list, which had treated him as an unreserved candidate pursuant to the binding directions of a Co-ordinate Bench.

Whether relief could be granted after appointments had been made and substantial third-party rights had accrued in favour of the selected candidates.

The Court applied Clauses 7(c) and 9 of Advertisement No. 15 of 2018, which required reservation certificates to be obtained and submitted by the closing date for applications.

It relied on Dr. M.V. Nair v. Union of India, (1993) 2 SCC 429, for the principle that eligibility and suitability are ordinarily determined with reference to the last date for submitting applications unless the advertisement specifies otherwise.

The Court considered Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754, and Ranjnish Kumar Rai v. Union of India, (2023) 14 SCC 782, relied upon by the petitioner in support of later submission of an OBC certificate, but held that the present case was governed additionally by the binding directions issued in the earlier proceedings.

It further applied the principles that an unchallenged foundational order cannot ordinarily be indirectly assailed through a challenge to a consequential order, as stated in Amarjeet Singh v. Devi Ratan, (2010) 1 SCC 417, and Edukanti Kistamma v. Venkatareddy, (2010) 1 SCC 756.

The Court also applied the doctrine of binding precedent between Co-ordinate Benches, relying on State through CBI v. Hemendhra Reddy, (2023) 16 SCC 779.

The principle that accrued third-party rights may prevent reopening a completed selection process, as reflected in Karan Singh Yadav v. Government of NCT of Delhi, order dated 28 September 2022.

The Court held that the petitioner’s certificate was admittedly issued after the closing date of 3 July 2018 and therefore did not comply with the express conditions of the advertisement.

More importantly, the provisional merit list had specifically recorded that his certificate was late and consequently treated him as a general-category candidate.

That list was prepared in compliance with the earlier Co-ordinate Bench’s directions requiring certificates to have been issued on or before the closing date.

The petitioner was given an opportunity to object but did not do so, nor did he challenge the earlier judgment containing the relevant directions.

Accordingly, he could not indirectly challenge the final list without first challenging the foundational provisional-list decision.

The Court further found that granting relief would prejudice approximately 1,400 candidates who had already been selected and appointed, thereby disturbing substantial third-party rights.

Finally, the Court held that it could not adopt a contrary approach to the binding decision of a Co-ordinate Bench; any disagreement would require reference to a larger Bench rather than a contrary ruling by another Co-ordinate Bench.

It held that the petitioner was not entitled to claim OBC-B reservation on the basis of a certificate issued after the prescribed closing date, particularly after he failed to challenge the provisional merit list or the earlier Co-ordinate Bench decision.

The subsequent appointments and accrual of third-party rights also barred the requested interference with the recruitment process.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and the Tribunal’s order declining relief was not interfered with.