Dismissed¶30

Pradip Middya v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC15 Jul 2026MAT/1388/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First SLST 2017 Headmaster/Headmistress recruitment; West Bengal School Service Commission omissions; missing names against ranks; multiple ranks to one candidate; waitlisted rank 1603; substantial compliance vs. infraction of recruitment rules; unsuccessful candidate cannot challenge recruitment process; appeal against Single Bench refusal to entertain writ petition dismissed; direction to S.S.C. against repetition of lapses; no costs; M.A.T. 1388 of 2021.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; MAT 1388 of 2021 and all connected pending applications dismissed; S.S.C. directed to ensure such lapses are not repeated in future; no order as to costs. ¶30

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant; MAT 1388 of 2021 and all connected pending applications dismissed; S.S.C. directed to ensure such lapses are not repeated in future; no order as to costs.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the omissions and irregularities attributed to the School Service Commission in the first SLST 2017 recruitment process (missing names against ranks, multiple ranks to the same candidate, unpublished candidate details, rule infractions) invalidated the recruitment process and entitled the petitioner to appointment. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

Every infraction of rules would not automatically negate a recruitment process if there is substantial compliance of such Rules.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

An unsuccessful candidate cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge any recruitment process.

¶25

Key takeaways

Observation that, had the petitioner been successful, he would have accepted the omissions of the School Service Commission and there would have been no occasion to file the proceeding.obiter¶26
The Court upholds the observations made by the Single Bench on the failure and omission of the School Service Commission and directs the S.S.C. to ensure such lapses are not repeated in future.ratio¶27
The observations of the Single Bench insofar as the petitioner is concerned are sufficient for the Court to hold that the impugned order calls for no interference.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench dismissed an appeal (M.A.T. 1388 of 2021) against the Single Bench judgment and order dated 8th December, 2021 declining to entertain a writ petition alleging omissions by the School Service Commission in the first SLST of 2017 for recruitment to the post of Headmaster/Headmistress (petitioner ranked 1599, waitlisted at 1603, not selected; allegations included missing names against ranks, multiple ranks to the same candidate, and unpublished candidate details). Held: (i) not every infraction of rules automatically negates a recruitment process where there is substantial compliance; (ii) an unsuccessful candidate cannot turn around and challenge the recruitment process; (iii) the Single Bench's observations on the Commission's failures and omissions were upheld and the S.S.C. directed to ensure such lapses are not repeated; the impugned order called for no interference. Appeal and connected pending applications dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

15-07-2026 ct no. 13 Sl. 37 pk/sp

¶2

M.A.T. 1388 of 2021 With

CAN 1 of 2021

Pradip Middya

-Versus-

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶7

Mr. Shuvro P. Lahiri, Mr. Rajesh Naskar, Mr. Ankan Mondal.

¶8

..for the appellant.

¶9

Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra, Ms. Supriya Dubey

¶10

…for the W.B.C.S.S.C.

¶11

The appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 8^th December, 2021 passed by a Single Bench of this Court.

¶12

The writ petitioner/appellant challenged the first SLST of 2017 for the recruitment to the post of Headmaster/Headmistress in a recognized non-government aided school. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process and was ranked at 1599. His waitlisted rank was 1603. The petitioner was not selected for appointment.

¶13

Before the Single Bench and before this Court

¶14

Mr. Lahiri, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant has labored to place

¶15

¶16

several ommissions on the part of the School Service Commission in the recruitment process and the publication of results.

¶17

Mr. Lahiri has argued that against several ranks, the names of the candidates are missing. He has also pointed out that some candidates including the writ

¶18

petitioner/appellant have been given more than one rank. This is highly irregular.

¶19

Infraction of several rules of recruitment to be followed by the State and the Commission have also been indicated by Mr. Lahiri. Some details of all candidates which are required to be published in the website of the Commission have not been so done.

¶20

In the backdrop of the above, it is argued by Mr. Lahiri that his client has a reasonable apprehension that in the event all rules of recruitment was strictly complied with and had there been 100% transparency in the recruitment process, his client could have had a chance of succeed.

¶21

The Single Bench appears to have noted all the omissions as argued by Mr. Lahiri but What has chosen not to entertain the writ petition. Several observations have been made for the Commission to follow. This,

¶22

¶23

according to Mr. Lahiri, would demonstrate that his client was successful in showing the omissions on the part of the School Service Commission in the aforesaid recruitment process.

¶24

This Court notes that every infraction of rules would not automatically negate a recruitment process if there is substantial compliance of such Rules.

¶25

It is now well-settled that an unsuccessful candidate cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge any recruitment process.

¶26

This Court’s mind is not free from doubt that had the petitioner been successful there would not have been occasion to file the instant proceeding. He would have accepted the omissions on the part of the School Service Commission.

¶27

This Court upholds the observations made by the Single Bench on the failure and omission on the part of the School Service Commission and would direct the S.S.C. to ensure that such lapses are not repeated in future, this Court does not wish to go any further. The observations of the Single Bench in so far as the petitioner is concerned are sufficient for

¶28

¶29

this Court to hold that the impugned order calls for no interference.

¶30