Disposed¶24

Sarifa Bibi v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC2 Apr 2025WPA/4310/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FPS licence selection delay; vacancy notification 1130/SCF&S/BST/MR/2022 dated 16.09.2022; WPA 4310 of 2025; earlier WPA 16144 of 2023 and Co-ordinate Bench order dated 24.07.2023; direction to conclude appointment process within 6 weeks; personal hearing before ADM on 28.03.2025; control order selection procedure; no affidavits exchanged, allegations deemed not admitted; Subhendu Samanta, J.; decided 02.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the concerned respondent authority to conclude the procedure for filling up the vacancy under the impugned notification as early as possible, more preferably within 6 weeks from the date of communication of the order; petitioner directed to communicate the order to the authority concerned within a week. ¶24

Sarifa Bibi Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the concerned authority should be directed to conclude the selection/appointment procedure for FPS under vacancy notification no. 1130/SCF&S/BST/MR/2022 dated 16.09.2022 and publish the result, which remained pending for more than two years.

¶16

Court's answer

Since the vacancy notification of 16.09.2022 remained pending and the selection procedure had been delayed for more than two years, the court considered it justified to direct the concerned authority to conclude the procedure of appointment as early as possible.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned respondent authority to conclude the procedure for filling up the vacancy of the impugned notification as early as possible, more preferably within 6 weeks from the date of communication of the order.

¶19

Key takeaways

The outer/preferred time frame fixed for concluding the appointment procedure is six weeks from the date of communication of the order.ratio¶21
As the respondent authority was not represented, the petitioner was directed to communicate the court's order to the authority concerned within a week.ratio¶22
Since no affidavits were exchanged, the allegations made in the writ petition shall be deemed not to have been admitted.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WPA 4310 of 2025) by an applicant for an FPS licence under vacancy notification no. 1130/SCF&S/BST/MR/2022 dated 16.09.2022, whose selection process remained unconcluded despite a prior Co-ordinate Bench order dated 24.07.2023 in WPA 16144 of 2023 directing publication of the result, and despite a personal hearing before the ADM on 28.03.2025. Noting a delay of more than two years, the court disposed of the petition with a direction to the concerned respondent authority to conclude the appointment procedure as early as possible, more preferably within 6 weeks from communication of the order; the petitioner was directed to communicate the order within a week as the State was unrepresented; allegations deemed not admitted since no affidavits were exchanged. (Subhendu Samanta, J., 02.04.2025)

¶1

ASR 28. Ct. no. 24. 02.04.2025

¶2

WPA 4310 of 2025

¶3

Sarifa Bibi Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Muhammad Obaid Mr. Chayan Debnath

¶5

…..For the appellant

¶6

Affidavit of service on behalf of the petitioner be

¶7

taken on record.

¶8

Despite service none appears on behalf of the State respondent.

¶9

The present petitioner applied for licence of FPS in pursuance to vacancy notification no. 1130/SCF&S/BST/MR/2022 dated 16.09.2022.

¶10

Her application was accepted.

¶11

Necessary inspection was done but she could not inform the result of the procedure. Accordingly, she approaches this court vide writ petition no. WPA 16144 of 2023.

¶12

A Co-ordinate Bench of this court vide its order dated 24^th July, 2023 disposed of the writ petition directing the concerned authority to conclude the selection process and inform the result of the petitioner by uploading the same in the official web.site.

¶13

It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has checked the portal but no result has

¶14

¶15

been published in the said portal. It is the fair contention of the petitioner that during the course of filing of the instant writ petition one notice of personal hearing was served upon the petitioner on 7^th March, 2025 directing her to attend the office of ADM on 28^th of March 2025.

¶16

She attended the meeting but till today no result has been published by the authority concerned. She approaches this court with a prayer so that the authority concerned may conclude proceeding for appointment of FPS in respect of the impugned vacancy notification. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the vacancy notification was published on 16^th September, 2022, since then it is pending.

¶17

From the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner it appears that the authority concerned has taken steps according to the provision of control order for selection of suitable candidate but the same procedure getting delayed for more than two years.

¶18

Considering the situation it appears to this court justified to pass a necessary direction upon the concerned authority to conclude the procedure of appointment as early as possible.

¶19

Under the above observation, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned respondent authority to conclude the procedure for fill

¶20

¶21

up the vacancy of impugned notification as early as possible, more preferably within 6 weeks from the date of communication of this order.

¶22

As the respondent authority is not represented, the petitioner is directed to communicate the order of this court to the authority concerned within a week.

¶23

Since no affidavits are exchanged, the allegation made in the writ petitioner shall be deemed to have been not admitted.

¶24

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶25

[Subhendu Samanta, J]

Sarifa Bibi v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarifa Bibi v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biswanath Sau Vs Krishnendu Bhattacharya & Ors.

M/S. Alauddin Sarkar and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Abdul Alim Laskar Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Md. Ismail Mondal Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Abu Sufian Sk. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Kandi Srijani Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.