1. Learned Counsel, Mr. Arijit Bhaumik is present on behalf of the applicant-petitioner. Learned Counsel, Ms. Pinki Chakraborty is present on behalf of the respondents-State and Learned Counsel, Mr. Kundan Pandey is present on behalf of the respondents-TPSC.

2. The main writ petition is pending for adjudication.

3. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that against the advertisement No.05/2025 issued by the TPSC, the applicant applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Physical Education subject). In the said advertisement, against the criteria for short-listing of candidates for interview, against the column No.7, 10 marks is kept reserved and also against column No.8, 3 marks is kept reserved. The TPSC published the result and the applicant secured 73 marks (Annexure-6 of the writ petition). But, the relevant documents against the said criteria were not considered.

               Thereafter, the TPSC issued another notification for submission of representation against the API score with supporting documents.

               According to Learned Counsel for the applicant, the applicant submitted representation. However, inspite of filing of representation, his grievances were not addressed by the TPSC, rather the TPSC has issued further notification for holding Personality Test/Interview which is likely to be held on 28.05.2026. So, by filing this IA, the applicant sought for relief for directing the respondents-TPSC either to withhold the interview or to keep the matter pending till decision of the connected writ petition.

4. On instruction, Learned Counsel, Mr. Pandey appeared on behalf of the respondents-TPSC and submitted that the said advertisement No.05/2025 was issued for filling up of the posts of Assistant Professor for 24 subjects. Out of 24 subjects, the scrutiny committee has considered the representation in respect of 15 subjects but, the verification in respect of the post applied by the applicant i.e. the Physical Education subject and others will be taken up later on and further date will be given accordingly, offering opportunity to the applicant to submit his representation. So, according to Learned Counsel for the respondents-TPSC, at this stage, there is no urgency to issue any direction upon the TPSC since the applicant will be given the scope.

5. So, considering the submissions made by Learned counsel for the respondents-TPSC, at this stage, I am not inclined to grant any specific relief to the applicant.

However, the applicant shall be at liberty to file separate IA if by this time no opportunity is given to him and his grievance is not addressed by the respondents-TPSC.

With this observation this interlocutory application stands disposed of.