HC upholds new WBSSC recruitment rules, junks appeal by 2016 waitlisted candidates

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court on Wednesday dismissed the appeal filed by waitlisted candidates of the 2016 State Level Selection Test (SLST), upholding the new recruitment process initiated under the West Bengal School Service Commission (selection for appointment to the post of assistant teachers for upper primary level classes IX-X and classes XI-XII) Rules of 2025.

A division bench comprising Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Smita Das De ruled that the appellants—who had merely participated in the 2016 SLST but were neither selected nor appointed—had no vested right to be considered under the recruitment rules of 2016, which had since been superseded. “The appellants by reason of mere participation do not acquire any vested right,” the court observed. It held that only those who had been appointed and later lost their jobs due to the invalidation of the recruitment process, as well as disabled candidates, had been granted age

relaxation and limited protection under earlier court directions. The appellants did not fall under these categories.

The petitioners had challenged the applicability of the 2025 rules, objecting to changes in eligibility criteria such as raising the minimum required academic marks from 45 per cent to 50 per cent and the introduction of a 10-mark weightage for prior teaching experience. The court held that such changes were policy decisions within the domain of the executive and supported by guidelines of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE).

The bench noted: “Education system will fail if we compromise on its ‘quality’,” and affirmed that updated eligibility standards aim to ensure the selection of the most competent candidates. The court also upheld the state’s decision to club the vacancies declared in 2016 with those arising subsequently, stating that this was neither prohibited by earlier court orders nor arbitrary.

“Separate recruitment processes would cause serious inconvenience and delay,” it said, pointing to concerns over pupil-teacher ratios and the timely filling up of posts.

The bench reiterated that judicial review of recruitment policy is limited and does not extend to evaluating the wisdom or fairness of such policies unless they are shown to be manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional.

Dismissing the appeal and the connected application, the court did not impose any costs.