16-09-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.11 Subrata Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Bhattacharyya Appellate Side AR(C) WPA No.22414 of 2026 Rahul Ghosh -vs- Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute & Anr. Mr. Prantik Garai Mr. Om Srivastava Mr. Deep Basak …for the petitioner Ms. Rashmi Bothra Ms. Priti Jain …for the Union of India 1. The petitioner participated for admission in a course in the Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute. He claims reservation in Other Backward Classes-Non Creamy Layer (OBC-NCL) seat. 2. The reservation rules according to which the admission process took place clearly mentioned that a candidate claiming OBC-NCL status must mention the status of the applicant in accordance with DoPT Office Memorandum No.36012/22/93-Estt. (SCT) dated November 15, 1993 and the certificate should have been issued on a date within one year before the closing date of receiving the application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, at the time of making the application, relied upon a certificate which was issued prior to one year before the closing date of receiving application. The same was an inadvertent error on his part. The petitioner does 2 possess an OBC-NCL certificate which is within one year of the closing date of receiving the application.

4. The petitioner’s prayer for grant of reservation has been disallowed by the authority by a communication dated August 4, 2026 and the same is impugned in the instant writ petition. 5. It has also been submitted that prior to publication of the final merit list, the petiotner submitted the proper OBC-NCL certificate and that the authority ought to have considered the same. 6. It has further been submitted that there were three seats reserved for OBC category and that there were only two candidates in the said category. The vacant third seat has been de-reserved and added up in the unreserved category. 7. Prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order of the authority rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for grant of reservation. 8. The submission of the petitioner is opposed by the learned counsel for the Institute. It has been submitted that the reservation policy and the reservation rules are very clear. The petitioner failed to apply in accordance with the reservation rules. The certificate relied upon by the petitioner was not of the proper date. Prayer has been made to dismiss the writ petition. 9. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and have perused the documents annexed to the writ petition. 10. The petitioner has admitted not to submit the requisite certificate at the time of making the application. Though the proper certificate was 3

submitted by the petitioner prior to the date of publication of the merit list, but the same will not cure the lapse or the error committed by the petitioner by not applying with the proper certificate at the time of making the application seeking admission. 11. The authority would be bound to follow the reservation rules which prescribed that a certificate issued on a date within one year before the closing date of receiving the application had to be annexed. 12. Possessing certificate of the proper date but not filing of the same at the time of filing the application will not cure the defect of the petitioner at this stage. Any act of the authority in allowing the petitioner to rely on a document not submitted at the time of making the application, will amount to granting relaxation in respect of a particular candidate, in departure of the prescribed reservation rules, which is absolutely impermissible in a public competitive admission process. 13. In view of the above, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the decision of the authority in not granting the benefit of reservation to the petitioner. 14. The writ petition thus fails and is hereby dismissed. 15. All parties are to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court. 16. Certified server copy of this order, if applied for, shall be made available to the parties. [Amrita Sinha, J] 4

16-09-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.11 Subrata Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Bhattacharyya Appellate Side AR(C) WPA No.22414 of 2026 Rahul Ghosh -vs- Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute & Anr. Mr. Prantik Garai Mr. Om Srivastava Mr. Deep Basak …for the petitioner Ms. Rashmi Bothra Ms. Priti Jain …for the Union of India 1. The petitioner participated for admission in a course in the Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute. He claims reservation in Other Backward Classes-Non Creamy Layer (OBC-NCL) seat. 2. The reservation rules according to which the admission process took place clearly mentioned that a candidate claiming OBC-NCL status must mention the status of the applicant in accordance with DoPT Office Memorandum No.36012/22/93-Estt. (SCT) dated November 15, 1993 and the certificate should have been issued on a date within one year before the closing date of receiving the application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, at the time of making the application, relied upon a certificate which was issued prior to one year before the closing date of receiving application. The same was an inadvertent error on his part. The petitioner does 2 possess an OBC-NCL certificate which is within one year of the closing date of receiving the application.

4. The petitioner’s prayer for grant of reservation has been disallowed by the authority by a communication dated August 4, 2026 and the same is impugned in the instant writ petition. 5. It has also been submitted that prior to publication of the final merit list, the petiotner submitted the proper OBC-NCL certificate and that the authority ought to have considered the same. 6. It has further been submitted that there were three seats reserved for OBC category and that there were only two candidates in the said category. The vacant third seat has been de-reserved and added up in the unreserved category. 7. Prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order of the authority rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for grant of reservation. 8. The submission of the petitioner is opposed by the learned counsel for the Institute. It has been submitted that the reservation policy and the reservation rules are very clear. The petitioner failed to apply in accordance with the reservation rules. The certificate relied upon by the petitioner was not of the proper date. Prayer has been made to dismiss the writ petition. 9. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and have perused the documents annexed to the writ petition. 10. The petitioner has admitted not to submit the requisite certificate at the time of making the application. Though the proper certificate was 3

submitted by the petitioner prior to the date of publication of the merit list, but the same will not cure the lapse or the error committed by the petitioner by not applying with the proper certificate at the time of making the application seeking admission. 11. The authority would be bound to follow the reservation rules which prescribed that a certificate issued on a date within one year before the closing date of receiving the application had to be annexed. 12. Possessing certificate of the proper date but not filing of the same at the time of filing the application will not cure the defect of the petitioner at this stage. Any act of the authority in allowing the petitioner to rely on a document not submitted at the time of making the application, will amount to granting relaxation in respect of a particular candidate, in departure of the prescribed reservation rules, which is absolutely impermissible in a public competitive admission process. 13. In view of the above, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the decision of the authority in not granting the benefit of reservation to the petitioner. 14. The writ petition thus fails and is hereby dismissed. 15. All parties are to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court. 16. Certified server copy of this order, if applied for, shall be made available to the parties. [Amrita Sinha, J] 4