Dismissed¶14

Sunil Kumar Sinha and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC24 Jul 2026MAT/644/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Service-related miscellaneous appeal (MAT) against Single Bench order of misjoinder; differing service statuses of writ petitioners (retirees and one serving employee, under ten years of service); alleged regularization by State doubted for absence of approved recruitment process by school managing committee; writ remedy deferred - appellants to first approach administrative authorities; request for direction to District Inspector of Schools on representations refused; appeal dismissed, connected application disposed of, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Since three writ petitioners/appellants retired on different dates, one is still working and none has completed ten years of service, no direction or entitlement of the writ petitioners/appellants against the State arises. ¶8

Sunil Kumar Sinha and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal against the Single Bench order dated 2nd February, 2026, which found misjoinder of parties and required the writ petitioners to first approach the authorities, warranted interference. +3 more

¶6

Court's answer

This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned Single Bench order dated 2nd February, 2026.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

¶8

Key takeaways

The Court entertains serious reservations about the claimed regularization of three writ petitioners by the State, there being no approval or accepted process of recruitment or procedure followed in their engagement by the school managing committee.ratio¶9
Even if the writ petition had been maintainable, it could not have obtained any straight relief from this Court.ratio¶11
The prayer for a direction upon the concerned District Inspector of Schools to consider the appellants' representations cannot be entertained by this Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Miscellaneous Appeal (MAT 644 of 2026, with CAN 1 of 2026) against an order dated 2nd February, 2026 of a Single Bench, which had found that the writ petitioners/appellants suffered from misjoinder of parties. The Division Bench (Rajasekhar Mantha and Rai Chattopadhyay, JJ.) declined to interfere. It noted that three appellants had retired on different dates, one was still in service and none had completed ten years of service, so no direction or entitlement against the State arose. The claim that the services of three appellants had been regularized drew serious reservations, as there was no approval or accepted recruitment process or procedure followed in their engagement by the school managing committee. The Court held that even a maintainable writ petition could not have obtained straight relief, that a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to consider representations could not be entertained, and that the appellants must first approach the authorities, as rightly held by the Single Bench. Appeal dismissed; CAN 1 of 2026 disposed of; no order as to costs.

¶1

24.07.2026 Court No.13 Item No.29 AP

¶2

MAT 644 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026

¶3

Sunil Kumar Sinha and Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors.

¶4

Mr. Anjan Bhattacharya Ms. Seema Thakur

¶5

… For the Appellants.

¶6

The appeal is directed against an order dated 2^nd February, 2026 passed by a Single Bench of this Court. The Single Bench found that the writ petitioners/ appellants suffered from misjoinder of parties.

¶7

Admittedly, three of the writ petitioners/appellants claimed to have retired from service on different dates. One writ petitioner/appellant is still working. None of the writ petitioners/appellants have completed ten years of service.

¶8

In the light of the above, the question of any direction or entitlement of the writ petitioners/appellants against the State does not and cannot arise.

¶9

While the counsel for the writ petitioners/appellants claims that the services of three writ petitioners/ appellants have been regularized by the State, this Court has serious reservations in that regard. There is no approval or any accepted process of recruitment or procedure followed in the engagement of the writ petitioners/appellants by the school managing committee.

¶10

¶11

Even if the writ petition was maintainable, it could not have obtained any straight relief from this Court. The prayer for direction upon the concerned District Inspector of Schools to consider their representations also cannot be entertained by this Court.

¶12