Dismissed¶17

Dibyakanti Purkait v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC24 Jul 2026FMA/1216/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularization of appointment as Assistant Teacher; appointment without sanctioned post and in violation of prevalent recruitment rules; approval/absorption of teachers; State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (2006 (4) SCC 1) relied on; Kuntal Sardar (WP No. 641 of 2008, order dated 02.05.2008) disapproved as ex facie illegal; Ramdevpur Junior High School, South 24-Parganas; W.B.B.S.E.; FMA 1216 of 2024 dismissed; interim orders vacated; no costs.

What did the court decide?

It is an admitted position that the writ petitioner was appointed in violation of the prevalent rules for recruitment and there was no sanctioned post under which he could have been appointed by the school. ¶11

Dibyakanti Purkait Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitioner/appellant, whose appointment as Assistant Teacher was made in violation of the prevalent recruitment rules and without any sanctioned post, was entitled to regularization, permanent appointment, absorption or approval thereof.

¶11

Court's answer

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The writ petitioner has no right to any permanent appointment or absorption in the school, much less approval of the same by the said authority.

¶12

Key takeaways

The earlier Single Bench order dated 2nd May, 2008 in WP No. 641 of 2008 (Kuntal Sardar) is ex facie illegal and in violation of the dicta of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (2006 (4) SCC 1).ratio¶16
The Single Bench rightly dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench dismissed the first miscellaneous appeal against the Single Bench order dated 29th July, 2024 in W.P.A. No. 18229 of 2024, by which the writ petition seeking regularization of the petitioner's appointment as Assistant Teacher in Ramdevpur Junior High School, South 24-Parganas was dismissed. The Court recorded it as admitted that the appointment was made in violation of the prevalent recruitment rules and that there was no sanctioned post, so the petitioner had no right to permanent appointment, absorption or approval. Reliance placed on the Single Bench order dated 2nd May, 2008 in WP No. 641 of 2008 (Kuntal Sardar & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) was rejected: that order, passed without opposition by the school and without recorded satisfaction as to service on the State authority, was held ex facie illegal and in violation of the dicta of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, 2006 (4) SCC 1. FMA 1216 of 2024 dismissed; connected applications (including CAN 1 of 2024) dismissed; interim orders, if any, vacated; no order as to costs.

¶1

Sl. No.6 24.07.2026 Court no.13 sp

¶2

F.M.A. 1216 of 2024

¶3

With CAN 1 of 2024 Dibyakanti Purkait Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee, Mr. Debjit Dutta.

¶5

..for the appellant.

¶6

Ms. Reshmi Ghosh, Ms. Renesa Dey.

¶7

..for the State.

¶8

Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya, Mr. Bibek Datta.

¶9

..for the W.B.B.S.E.

¶10

The appeal is directed against the order dated 29^th July, 2024 passed by a Single Bench of this Court in W.P.A. No. 18229 of 2024.

¶11

The writ petitioner sought regularization of his appointment as Assistant Teacher in Ramdevpur Junior High School, South 24-Parganas. It is an admitted position that the writ petitioner was appointed in violation of the prevalent rules for recruitment and there was no sanctioned post under which the writ petitioner could have been appointed by the school in question.

¶12

The writ petitioner, therefore, does not have any right of any permanent appointment or absorption in the school or much less approval of the same by the said authority.

¶13

¶14

Reliance is placed on an order of a Single Bench dated 2^nd May, 2008 being WP No. 641 of 2008 (Kuntal Sardar & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.), the Single Bench appeared to have directed the approval of teachers appointed in the school only by virtue of long length of their services.

¶15

It further appears that the school in the said case did not oppose the prayer of the writ petitioners therein. It is not known as to whether the said State authority were at all served and the Single Bench could have satisfied itself as regards the service. There is no such recording in the order dated 2^nd May, 2008.

¶16

In any event, the order dt 2^nd May, 2008 is ex facie illegal and in violation of the dicta of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 . The Single Bench has, therefore, rightly dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order.

¶17