Dismissed¶¶22

Radhu Roy v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC24 Jul 2026MAT/633/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularization of service refused; Gate Keeper post; no sanctioned post of Gate Keeper in school; no parity with subsequently regularized colleagues who underwent selection process, interview and written test; condonation of delay of 37 days; M.A.T. 633 of 2025; CAN 1 of 2025; CAN 2 of 2025; WPA 8295 of 2020; FMA 224 of 2022; RVW 197 of 2023; Single Bench order dated 6th February, 2025 upheld by Division Bench; interim orders vacated; no costs; Rajasekhar Mantha, J.; Rai Chattopadhyay, J.; Radha Roy v. State of West Bengal.

What did the court decide?

Only procedural relief: delay of 37 days in filing the appeal condoned (CAN 2 of 2025 allowed) and leave to rectify defects. On merits no relief: M.A.T. 633 of 2025 dismissed, CAN 1 of 2025 dismissed, interim orders (if any) vacated, and there shall be no order as to costs. ¶¶22

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 37 days in filing the appeal (M.A.T. 633 of 2025) should be condoned under CAN 2 of 2025. +1 more

¶¶9

Court's answer

Sufficient grounds being available to explain the delay, the delay of 37 days in filing the appeal is condoned and CAN 2 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of.

¶¶11

Ratio / Principle

The other persons in the college whose services were regularized subsequently had undergone a selection process and sat for interview and written test; the writ petitioner therefore cannot claim parity with such persons, and this Court is in complete agreement with the views expressed by the Single Bench in the impugned order.

¶¶19

Key takeaways

There is no sanctioned post of Gate Keeper in the school, the post in which the writ petitioner claims regularization.ratio¶¶20
In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 6th February, 2025 calls for no interference.ratio¶¶21
M.A.T. 633 of 2025 shall stand dismissed.ratio¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delay of 37 days in filing M.A.T. 633 of 2025 condoned (CAN 2 of 2025 allowed); appeal against Single Bench order dated 6th February, 2025 dismissed by the Division Bench (Rajasekhar Mantha and Rai Chattopadhyay, JJ.). The writ petitioner, whose service as Gate Keeper of the respondent college was not regularized by the State, could not claim parity with other persons regularized subsequently, since those persons had undergone a selection process and sat for interview and written test. Further, there is no sanctioned post of Gate Keeper in the school. The impugned order calls for no interference; CAN 1 of 2025 also dismissed; interim orders, if any, vacated; no order as to costs. Prior rounds: WPA 8295 of 2020 dismissed 9th July, 2021; FMA 224 of 2022 decided 18th July, 2023; RVW 197 of 2023 dismissed 17th May, 2024.

¶1

Sl. No.7

¶2

24.07.2026 Court no.13 sp

¶3

M.A.T. 633 of 2025

¶4

With CAN 1 of 2025 With CAN 2 of 2025 Radha Roy Versus

¶5

State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶6

Mr. S.S. Arefin, Ms. Anamika Jana.

¶7

..for the appellant.

¶8

Re: CAN 2 of 2025

¶9

CAN 2 of 2025 has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 37 days in filing the instant appeal.

¶10

Sufficient grounds are available to explain the delay in filing the instant appeal.

¶11

Hence, the delay is condoned.

¶12

Accordingly, CAN 2 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of.

¶13

Leave is granted to the learned advocate on record for the appellant to rectify the defects in the appeal in course of the day.

¶14

Re: MAT 633 of 2025

¶15

The instant appeal is directed against an order dated 6^th February, 2025 passed by a Single Bench of this Court.

¶16

The grievance of the writ petitioner before the Single Bench was that his service as Gate Keeper of the respondent/college was not regularized by the State. The writ petitioner earlier had approached this Court by way of filing writ petitioner being WPA 8295 of 2020 for the similar relief. The said writ petition was dismissed vide

¶17

¶18

order dated 9^th July, 2021. The order was carried in appeal being FMA 224 of 2022 on 18^th July, 2023. A review application being RVW 197 of 2023 was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 17^th May, 2024.

¶19

The writ petitioner would argue that services of other persons in the college were regularized subsequently. It appears that the said other persons had undergone a selection process and sat for interview and written test. The writ petitioner, therefore, cannot claim parity with such persons. This Court is in complete agreement with the views expressed by the Single Bench in the impugned order.

¶20

It further appears that the post in which the writ petitioner claims regularization is that of a Gate Keeper. There is no sanctioned post of the Gate Keeper in the school.

¶21