Dismissed¶28

Payel Das Dan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC1 Jul 2026WP.CT/211/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Payel Das Dan & Ors. v. Union of India, WPCT 211 of 2025 (order dated 01.07.2026): GDCE typing proficiency test; backspace key held not an editing tool; uniform allowance of backspace to all candidates — no discrimination; challenge after participation without objection impermissible; belated challenge would unsettle settled appointments to 287 vacancies; O.A. No. 350/997/2022 dismissal upheld; Railway Board circular dated 04.02.2011 silent on editing tools; writ petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

The backspace key is a common key of the keyboard like any other key and is not treated as an editing tool; the notification stipulated a qualifying-nature typing test without editing tools and the admit card specifically recorded that use of editing tools for correcting mistakes in typed matter would not be allowed

Payel Das Dan and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the backspace key constitutes an 'editing tool', and whether permitting its use in the GDCE typing proficiency test despite the specific bar on editing tools amounted to discrimination against the petitioners +2 more

¶15

Court's answer

¶22

Ratio / Principle

All the candidates who appeared in the examination were uniformly given the advantage of using the backspace key; consequently, the petitioners' contention that the authorities practiced discrimination was rightly discounted

¶24

Key takeaways

It was not a case that the petitioners were unaware at the time of participation that backspace is not a component of editing tools; having appeared in the examination without raising any objection, they cannot turn back and challenge the selection process merely because the result was not palatable to themratio¶25
The examination was conducted way back in 2022 to fill up 287 vacancies; the successful candidates were not made parties to the original application and the respondents were never restrained from filling up the posts; acceptance of the plea at this belated stage would unsettle a settled status and severely prejudice the persons appointedratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition against dismissal of O.A. No. 350/997/2022 concerning the railway GDCE notified on 17th January, 2022: the Court held that the backspace key is a common keyboard key, not an 'editing tool'; all candidates were uniformly permitted its use, so no discrimination arose; the petitioners, having appeared in the examination without objection, cannot turn back and challenge the selection merely because the result displeased them; a belated challenge would unsettle settled appointments to 287 vacancies, the successful candidates not being parties; the Railway Board circular dated 4th February, 2011 does not identify which tools are editing tools. The Tribunal's specific findings were found free of infirmity; the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶1

01.07.2026 Item No.22 Court No.01 KCP

¶2

WPCT 211 of 2025

¶3

Payel Das Dan & Ors. - Versus - Union of India & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Bhaskar Roy

¶5

Ms. Sahili Dey

¶6

Ms. Debangana Dey …. for the Petitioners

¶7

Mr. Tushar Kanti Har Mr. Jasojeet Mukherjee …. For the Union of India

¶8

Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be kept on record.

¶9

The present writ petition has been preferred challenging an order dated 13^th May, 2025 passed in the original application being O.A. No.350/997/2022 which was initially preferred by 20 applicants. Upon exchange of pleadings, the original application was dismissed by the order impugned. Challenging the said order, six original applicants have approached this Court.

¶10

Records would reveal that the railway authorities published a General Departmental Competitive Examination (GDCE) notification dated 17^th January, 2022. Responding to the same, the applicants/writ petitioners herein applied for

¶11

¶12

participation and they were issued admit cards. The said examination was comprising of a Computer Based Test (CBT) followed by a typing test, document verification and medical examination. The said notification stipulated inter alia that the Typing proficiency Test would be of a qualifying nature and that the marks obtained in qualifying test shall not be added for determining merit. After completion of the examination, a list of successful candidates was published in which the names of the petitioners did not feature. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 1^st June, 2022 stating inter alia that they did not use the editing tools for the typed matter because it was clearly instructed in the notification as well as in the admit card that use of editing tools for correcting the mistakes in typed matter will not be allowed. The said representation was, however, not responded to and as such, the petitioners were constrained to approach the learned Trial Court.

¶13

Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners strenuously argues that backspace key was a part and parcel of editing tools. Such fact would be explicit from the Railway Board circulars issued for selection in several divisions. However,

¶14

¶15

the candidates were illegally allowed to use the back space option in spite of a specific rider in the notification that the typing proficiency test would be of qualifying nature without editing tools. In spite of such specific bar towards utilization of backspace option, many candidates were allowed to use the said option in the concerned test and as a consequence thereof, the petitioners had been discriminated. Such issue, as urged, was glossed over by the learned Tribunal and no finding was returned on the same. Such infirmity warrants interference of this Court.

¶16

Mr. Roy further submits that the learned Tribunal by an order dated 23^rd June, 2022 directed the respondents to clarify whether the backspace is an editing tool and whether the applicants selected had used the backspace. In spite of such direction though no clarification was furnished, the learned Tribunal abruptly dismissed the original application.

¶17

Mr. Har, learned advocate appearing for the Union of India and its functionaries denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Roy and submits that no document could be produced by the petitioners to establish that backspace is a component of editing tools. All the candidates who appeared in the said

¶18

¶19

examination were uniformly given the advantage of using the backspace.

¶20

He argues that all the candidates were called for a mock test before the typing test was held on 28^th April, 2022 and all of them were informed that they would be allowed to use the backspace key. The petitioners did not raise any objection as regards the use of backspace during the mock test. In view thereof, the allegation that the authorities have practiced discrimination is not sustainable.

¶21

Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.

¶22

Indisputably, in the notification dated 1^st June, 2022 it was specified that typing proficiency test will be of qualifying nature without editing tools and the marks obtained in the qualifying test shall not be added for determining the final result. In the admit card issued to the petitioners it was also specifically incorporated that ‘use of editing tools for correcting the mistakes in the typed matter will not be allowed’ . The backspace key is a common key of the keyboard like any other key which is not treated as an editing tool. All the candidates were uniformly given the advantage of using the backspace key and as such,

¶23

¶24

the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the authorities have practiced discrimination was rightly discounted.

¶25

The examination was conducted way back in the year 2022 to fill up 287 vacancies. The successful candidates were not made parties to the original application. At no juncture, the respondents were also restrained from filling up the said posts. Acceptance of the petitioners’ plea at this belated stage would unsettle a settled status and the persons’ appointed would be severely prejudiced. Furthermore, it is not a case that the petitioners were unaware at the time of participation in the examination that backspace is not a component of editing tools. They appeared in the examination without raising any objection. Having participated in the examination they cannot turn back and challenge the selection process since the result was not palatable to them. The Railway Board circular dated 4^th February, 2011, upon which reliance was placed by the petitioners, does not state or clarify the tools which may be construed as editing tools.

¶26

The learned Tribunal extensively dealt with the factual issues and arrived at specific findings and we do not find any infirmity in the same.

¶27

¶28

For the reasons discussed above, we are unable to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioners and the writ petition being WPCT 211 of 2025 is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶29

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶30

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

¶31

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)

Payel Das Dan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Payel Das Dan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Triveni Holdings Pvt. and Anr. Vs Saurav Roy

Purulia District Congress Committee Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Bachai Ram Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ramkrishna Pal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Ramkrishna Pal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Mahamadul Hasan Gayen Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.