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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Remittal of the seniority question to Respondent No.2 (Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Irrigation & Waterways Department) for a decision after hearing the affected parties, to be concluded within three months with due intimation; writ petition disposed of, pending O.A. No. 659 of 2024 also disposed of, and all issues left open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, recruited as Sub-Assistant Engineer through the earlier Public Service Commission Recruitment Process of 2004 but ranked below candidates appointed to the same post through the 2005 Recruitment Process, is entitled to seniority over the latter, as submitted relying on Rule 4 of the West Bengal Service (Determination of Seniority) Rules, 1981. +1 more

Court's answer

The matter is remitted to Respondent No.2 for consideration.

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.2 should take a decision on the petitioner's claims after hearing the parties likely to be affected by such a decision.

Key takeaways

Respondent No.2 is expected to conclude the consideration within three months of receipt/production of a copy of the order, under due intimation to the parties.ratio¶15
All issues remain open to the parties, and the aggrieved person will be free to assail the decision of Respondent No.2 in accordance with law.obiter¶20
Since the matter stands relegated to the authority, the pendency of Original Application No. 659 of 2024 would be an exercise in futility; the O.A. also stands disposed of in the same terms.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Seniority – Sub-Assistant Engineer – petitioner recruited through the Public Service Commission Recruitment Process of 2004 but placed below candidates appointed to the same post through the 2005 Recruitment Process; petitioner relied on Rule 4 of the West Bengal Service (Determination of Seniority) Rules, 1981, submitting that persons appointed on the result of an earlier selection process rank senior to those appointed from a subsequent process. The State (learned G.P.) contended the issue required consideration with reference to the 1981 Rules, the recruitment rules and the advertisement(s), after giving the 2005-batch recruits likely to be affected a due opportunity. The Court noted that the petitioner's representation dated 29.01.2024 to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Irrigation & Waterways Department (Respondent No.2) had not been decided, and declined to adjudicate the seniority question itself. The Court directed Respondent No.2 to take a decision on the petitioner's claims after hearing the parties likely to be affected, remitted the matter accordingly, and expected conclusion within three months of receipt/production of a copy of the order under due intimation to the parties. The writ petition was disposed of; the pending Original Application No. 659 of 2024 was likewise disposed of as an exercise in futility; all issues were expressly left open, with liberty to the aggrieved person to assail Respondent No.2's decision in accordance with law. Bench: Madhuresh Prasad, J. and Prasenjit Biswas, J.

Ct. No.4 D/L 12.03.2026 (Naba) 01

W.P.S.T. 50 of 2026

Sri Anup Das Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. M. N. Roy, Mr. G. Haldar

...for the Petitioner

Mr. Swapan Kr. Datta, ld. G.P., Mr. Tapas Kr. Roy, Mr. Kaustav Chatterjee

...for the State

Ms. Shraboni Sarkar, Ms. Umme Habiba Khatun

...for the P.S.C. W.B.

An issue raised in the present writ petition is the petitioner’s grievance that he was placed below those appointed to the post of Sub-Assistant Engineer in a Public Service Commission Recruitment Process of 2005, though he was recruited to the same post pursuant to an earlier Public Service Commission Recruitment Process of 2004.

The learned advocate for the writ petitioner places reliance on Rule 4 of the West Bengal Service (Determination of Seniority) Rules, 1981. He submits that the Rule leaves no room for ambiguity that persons appointed on the result of an earlier selection process will be senior to those appointed as a result of a subsequent selection process.

2

The learned G.P. on the other hand submits that the issue is required to be considered with reference to the 1981 Rules, the recruitment Rules under which the petitioner was appointed, the advertisement/s and after giving a due opportunity to those who are recruited pursuant to the 2005 Recruitment Process, who are likely to be effected by a decision. The writ petitioner had raised his grievance by way of a representation submitted to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Irrigation & Waterways Department (Respondent No.2) on 29.01.2024. The authority has not taken any decision in this matter till date. 4. We, therefore, are of the view that the Respondent No.2 should take a decision in respect of the petitioner’s claims, after hearing the parties likely to be effected by such a decision.

We, therefore, remit the matter for consideration to the Respondent No.2.

It is expected that within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, the Respondent No.2 will conclude the consideration under due intimation to the parties. 7. The Writ Petition is disposed of.

In view of the order passed today, the matter being relegated for consideration to the authority, pendency of the Original Application No. 659 of

3

2024 would be an exercise in futility. The O.A. also stands disposed of in these terms.

It is needless to say that all issues are open to the parties, and it will be open to the aggrieved person to assail the decision of the Respondent No.2, in accordance with law.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)

(Prasenjit Biswas, J.)