Recruitment Process Initiated Under Valid Policy Cannot Be Set Aside Merely Due to Later Change in Committee Composition: Calcutta High Court

“Subsequent Policy Changes Can’t Derail Ongoing Recruitment Process”, In a significant verdict impacting public recruitment processes governed by evolving administrative policies, the Calcutta High Court upheld the legality of the recruitment of staff for Ashram Hostels in WPA. Justice Krishna Rao dismissed the petitioner’s challenge to the selection process on technical grounds, holding that subsequent modifications to government policy cannot retrospectively invalidate a recruitment process already initiated under a valid prevailing policy.

Delivering a detailed judgment under its constitutional writ jurisdiction, the Court ruled that the Chairman-cum-Convener of the Block Advisory Committee was competent to issue the recruitment notification dated 7 January 2025, since the process was commenced under the framework established by a Government Resolution dated 11 December 2006, which remained the operative policy at the time.

"Policy Changes Cannot Apply Retrospectively to Disrupt Validly Initiated Recruitment"

The core issue before the Court revolved around the validity of a recruitment notice issued by the Block Development Officer, Moyna, acting as Chairman-cum-Convener of the Block Advisory Committee for the engagement of Superintendent, Cook, and Helper in an ST Ashram Hostel attached to Paramanandapur Jagannath Institution.

The petitioner, Sibnath Mondal, had not applied for the post, claiming that the recruitment was initiated in violation of a new policy introduced via order dated 18 December 2024, which designated the Headmaster/Teacher-in-Charge of the host institution as the Member-Convener, rather than the BDO. The petitioner further contended that another subsequent guideline dated 18 June 2025, which emphasized preference to candidates familiar with tribal culture and language, had also been ignored.

Rejecting both contentions, the Court held:

“The recruitment process having commenced pursuant to the policy direction dated 11.03.2024 relying on the 2006 Resolution, subsequent modification in the constitution of the Advisory Committee would not invalidate recruitment already initiated.” [Para 10]

The Court observed that the recruitment was carried out under the framework in place at the time, as reaffirmed by the order dated 11 March 2024, which explicitly directed that recruitment should be conducted through the Advisory Committee formed under the 2006 Resolution. Accordingly, the Chairman-cum-Convener’s authority to issue the advertisement remained valid.

“No Prejudice Caused to Any Candidate; Technical Objections Cannot Nullify Lawful Recruitment”

The Court further emphasized that the petitioner did not participate in the recruitment, nor did he demonstrate any prejudice or change in eligibility criteria caused by the alleged irregularity. Justice Rao noted that:

“Even if the case of the petitioner is taken into consideration, that instead of the Headmaster acting as Member-Convener, the Chairman acted as Convener, none of the aspiring candidates would be prejudiced.” [Para 13]

In the absence of any procedural infirmity, malafides, or violation of statutory norms, the Court reiterated that judicial interference in recruitment processes is limited:

“Courts should not interfere with recruitment processes conducted transparently and in accordance with prevailing policy unless arbitrariness, mala fides or violation of statutory provisions is established.” [Para 12]

The petitioner’s further reliance on the 18 June 2025 guideline—which suggested preference to candidates acquainted with tribal ethos—was also dismissed on the ground that it was issued after the recruitment process had already begun, and none of the participating candidates had challenged the process.

“Headmaster Directed to Permit Selected Candidate to Join Immediately”

Notably, the Court took a dim view of the Headmaster's refusal to allow the selected candidate (Respondent No. 10) to join the post despite issuance of an appointment order. After reviewing the record, the Court held that:

“The respondents have conducted written test followed by interview and the candidate with respect to the post of Superintendent has been selected and appointment letter has been issued but the Headmaster is not allowing the selected candidate to join the duty.” [Para 12]

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the Headmaster of the Paramanandapur Jagannath Institution was directed to allow Respondent No. 10 to join forthwith.

The Calcutta High Court’s ruling in Sibnath Mondal v. State of West Bengal underscores a fundamental principle in service jurisprudence: a recruitment process once lawfully commenced under an existing policy cannot be unsettled by subsequent administrative orders—unless explicit retrospective effect is granted. Courts will not entertain technical or speculative challenges from non-participating candidates, particularly where transparency, fairness, and legal compliance are established on record.

This decision stands as a precedent affirming administrative stability and judicial restraint in public employment matters, especially when recruitment relates to welfare schemes such as Ashram Hostels for tribal communities.

Date of Decision: 23 December 2025