This appeal challenges an order dismissing a writ petition filed by a candidate who failed to apply under the applicable recruitment rules after being selected under different rules. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the single judge's decision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Item-14. 16-10-2023
MAT 340 of 2023 CAN 1 of 2023 CAN 2 of 2023
sg Ct. 8 Satyajit Pramanik Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Achintya Kr. Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Tarun Kumar Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Soumen Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Soubteya Ganguly, Adv. …for the appellant Dr. Sutanu Kr. Patra, Adv. Ms. Supriya Dubey, Adv. …for the WBCSSC Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, Adv. Mr. Sagnik Chatterjee, Adv. …for the State
2
the learned Single Judge to the extent that once the SubDivisional Officer clarified the status of the writ petitioner, “he would be considered in the next available selection process”. The next selection process commenced in the year 2016. Subsequent thereto, by a letter dated 9th January, 2017, the writ petitioner informed the Secretary of the School Service Commission that the Sub-Divisional Officer issued an OBC(B) category certificate and requested to consider his case as per the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench..
of the School Service Commission informed the writ petitioner that by that time, the 12th RLST(AT), 2011 Examination was closed and the writ petitioner was directed to apply in the next selection process. This Memo was challenged by the writ petitioner by filing a writ petition in the year 2018 in which, by an order dated 20th July, 2018 the said Memo was set aside primarily on the ground that the same was not supported by any reason. The learned Single Judge directed the Secretary of the School Service Commission to pass a reasoned order upon granting a liberty of hearing of the writ petitioner. On the basis of the said direction, a reasoned order was passed on 31st August, 2018, which was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition in which the impugned order was passed.
3
such direction in the order dated 20th July, 2018 in the earlier writ petition. In view of the fact that the writ petitioner did not apply the following Recruitment Rules, 2016, no relief was granted to the writ petitioner. In fact, the Secretary of the School Service Commission has stated that his case could not be considered as he did not apply in the State Level Selection Test and the candidature of the writ petitioner could not be considered now.
(Uday Kumar, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the School Service Commission erred in not considering the appellant for selection due to failure to apply under the Recruitment Rules, 2016.
Whether the delay in the appellant's application justifies interfering with the learned Single Judge's order dismissing his writ petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Satyajit Pramanik
Sutanu Kr. Patra
The School Service Commission
The State of West Bengal
Uday Kumar
Soumen Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
