Former OBC candidates may claim EWS quota in West Bengal Police recruitment if otherwise eligible, Calcutta High Court rules

The petitioners participated in the West Bengal Police Constable recruitment process initiated in 2024 and challenged, in September 2026, the opportunity given to candidates formerly classified as OBC-A or OBC-B—but excluded from the revised OBC list following Kamal Chandra Das v. State of West Bengal—to seek consideration under the EWS category.

They contended that this changed the recruitment rules after the process began and disadvantaged existing EWS candidates.

The recruitment advertisement required EWS candidates to produce an income-and-asset certificate for financial year 2023–24 “or onwards”; it specified a certificate-issuance period of 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024 and testimonial verification at interview.

The State maintained that the stated financial year and issuance dates were not restrictive, and that the category-update window followed the change in OBC classification.

The petitioners had participated in the process without challenging the advertisement.

1. Whether allowing candidates excluded from the former OBC-A and OBC-B lists to seek EWS consideration after the recruitment process began impermissibly changed the rules of the game.

2. Whether the advertisement’s EWS certificate requirements fixed a rigid eligibility date that prevented such candidates from relying on certificates issued later, including at the interview stage.

3. Whether the petitioners could challenge these arrangements after participating in the recruitment process without protest.

The Court applied the recruitment advertisement’s terms: an EWS certificate could relate to financial year 2023–24 “or onwards,” and testimonials were to be checked at interview.

It construed “or onwards” as extending beyond financial year 2023–24 and held that the accompanying certificate-issuance dates were indicative rather than a rigid, exclusive deadline.

The Court also applied the principle that a candidate who participates in a selection process without timely objection cannot ordinarily challenge its conditions after participating.

It distinguished Union Public Service Commission v. Gaurav Singh, concerning the relevant date for EWS income-and-asset certificates, and Sakshi Arha v. Rajasthan High Court, concerning creamy and non-creamy layer classification, as not displacing its reading of this advertisement.

It referred to Sudipta Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal in considering the significance of the recruitment notice’s terms on the crucial date.

The Court found that the advertisement did not confine EWS eligibility to financial year 2023–24: the words “or onwards” contemplated later financial years, while the 2023–24 issuance dates could not sensibly operate as a fixed deadline for a recruitment process continuing into 2026.

Because testimonials were to be checked at interview, candidates could produce the required credentials then, subject to satisfying the applicable eligibility requirements.

The Court considered the opportunity extended to the excluded OBC candidates a means of responding to the intervening change in classification, not an impermissible alteration of the recruitment rules; their EWS certificates did not guarantee appointment or displace other candidates’ right to compete.

It further held that the petitioners’ increased competition was not a ground to exclude otherwise eligible candidates and that their failure to object before participating weighed against their belated challenge.

The petitioners’ challenge failed, and the writ petition was dismissed without an order as to costs.