Dismissed

Aktar Jomader and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC5 Oct 2023WP.ST/142/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a West Bengal Administrative Tribunal order denying appointment to writ petitioners in the Kolkata Police, holding that the explanation for delay regarding subsequent knowledge of related litigation was untenable as the petitioners were strategically waiting for a decision.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without order as to costs for want of proper condonation of delay due to laches.

Aktar Jomader and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and… — Service and Employment | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

05.10.2023 Item No.4 Ct. No.5 CHC (dismissed)

¶2

WP.ST 142 of 2023

¶3

Aktar Jomader & anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & ors.

¶4

Mr. Sutirtha Das

¶5

…for the writ petitioners

¶6

Mr. Tapan Kr. Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate & AGP Mr. Pinaki Dhole, Mr. Sayan Datta

¶7

…for the State

¶8

The writ petition is directed against an order dated December 16, 2011 passed in O.A.432 of 2011 by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal.

¶9

By the impugned order, the Tribunal negated the claim of the writ petitioners.

¶10

Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners submits that, the subject-matter of the writ petition is covered by the decision of this Bench dated June 27, 2023 passed in WP.ST 274 of 2011.

¶11

State is represented.

¶12

The challenge in the Original Application was with regard to appointment in Kolkata Police pursuant to a selection process of 2009 on the ground that, writ petitioners were included in the panel after selection and that, there were vacancies available.

¶13

¶14

We considered such a paradigm in our decision dated June 27, 2023 passed in WP.ST 274 of 2011, where, we held that, the panel expired one year from the date of communication of the order dated April 20, 2010 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in another Original Application.

¶15

The writ petitioners are before us against an order dated December 16, 2011 passed by the Tribunal. There is a question of unexplained delay involved. The writ petitioners seek to explain the delay on the ground that they became aware of the pendency of the WP.ST 274 of 2011 and two other writ petitions, in which the order dated June 27, 2023 was passed, subsequently.

¶16

We are unable to accept such explanation for condonation of delay. We find that, the writ petitioners were sitting in the fence awaiting decision. This conduct cannot be accepted.

¶17

In such circumstances, we are not minded to grant any relief to the writ petitioner.

¶18

WP.ST 142 of 2023 is dismissed without any

¶19

order as to costs.

¶20

(Debangsu Basak, J.)

¶21

(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)

Aktar Jomader and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aktar Jomader and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of West Bengal & Anr. Vs Abp Private Limited

Union of India and Ors. Vs Sri Sukdeb Mandal

Kshirod Kumar Mishra Vs State of W.B.

Sanjit Karmakar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Susmita Biswas Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Ramendra Kumar Roy Vs Deb Kumar Dey and Ors.