Disposed¶21

Kanhaiya Kumar Singh v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC25 Mar 2026WP.ST/67/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

writ petition disposed; interim orders; Original Application; O.A. No. 73 of 2021; O.A. No. 74 of 2026; West Bengal Administrative Tribunal; panel dated 26.02.2026 set aside sought; Medical Technologist Grade-III; NRS Medical College; prosthetist contractual service; 2021 advertisement; over-age unqualified candidate; liberty to raise issues in pending O.A.; no case for interference; second O.A. after five years; representation disposal; Madhuresh Prasad; Prasenjit Biswas; State of West Bengal.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise issues relating to subsequent steps in the recruitment process in the pending O.A. No. 73 of 2021; O.A. No. 74 of 2026 disposed of as nothing survives in it. ¶21

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the case made out by the writ petitioner warranted judicial interference with the recruitment process/panel. +2 more

¶19

Court's answer

No case is made out for interference by this court.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

If aggrieved by any subsequent steps taken in the recruitment process, the petitioner is required to raise those issues in the pending O.A. No. 73 of 2021.

¶19

Key takeaways

With the liberty to raise issues in the pending O.A. No. 73 of 2021, the Writ Petition is disposed of.ratio¶21
In view of the order passed, nothing survives in O.A. No. 74 of 2026 pending before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal; its pendency would be futile and it is accordingly disposed of.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (W.P.S.T. 67 of 2026) by a contractual prosthetist at NRS Medical College who had participated, admittedly while unqualified (over age), in the 2021 recruitment for Medical Technologist Grade-III solely on the strength of interim orders in O.A. No. 73 of 2021, with candidature subject to the result of that Original Application. The Original Application was never averred to have been finally decided. Five years on, the petitioner instituted a second Original Application (O.A. No. 74 of 2026) seeking disposal of a representation and setting aside of the panel published on 26.02.2026. The bench found no case warranting interference, held that grievances about subsequent recruitment steps must be raised in the pending O.A. No. 73 of 2021, disposed of the Writ Petition with such liberty, and declared that nothing survived in O.A. No. 74 of 2026 before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal, disposing of it as its continued pendency would be futile. Bench: Madhuresh Prasad, J. and Prasenjit Biswas, J.; single joint order, no dissent.

¶1

Ct. No.4 D/L 25.03.2026 (Naba) 01

¶2

W.P.S.T. 67 of 2026

¶3

Sri Kanhaiya Kumar Singh Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Dilip Kumar Maiti, Ms. Maitryee Maiti

¶5

...for the Petitioner

¶6

Mr. Swapan Kr. Datta, ld. G.P., Ms. Kakali Samajpaty, Mr. Bikramjit Mondal Mr. Soumen Dutta, Mr. Subham Dutta, Ms. Mohua Palit

¶7

...for the State

¶8

...for the Private Respondent

¶9

Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

¶10

Heard the learned advocate for the applicant-writ petitioner and the learned G.P. for the State as well as the learned advocate for the private respondent.

¶11

The applicant is serving on contractual basis as prosthetist in the NRS Medical College as per averments made in the Original Application. An advertisement was issued in the year 2021 for appointment to the post of a Medical Technologist Grade-III. The petitioner admittedly was unqualified being over age, which is clear from his averment made in the Original Application. He, therefore, filed an Original Application bearing O.A. No.73 of 2021, wherein certain interim orders were passed allowing his candidature in respect of the advertisement of 2021 subject to

¶12

¶13

result of the Original Application. The panel pursuant to the recruitment process initiated in 2021 was published on 26.02.2026.

¶14

¶15

There is no averment in the Original Application as to whether any order was finally passed in the O.A. No. 73 of 2021 holding the petitioner eligible.

¶16

There is no averment in the Original Application that the earlier O.A. No. 73 of 2021 was finally decided or disposed of. From the averments made in the Original Application, therefore, the admitted position that emerges is petitioner’s participation in the recruitment process on the strength of interim order passed in O.A. No. 73 of 2021 subject to final outcome of the earlier O.A.

¶17

¶18

In the circumstances, we fail to appreciate why a second O.A. has been filed five years thereafter (O.A. No.74 of 2026) seeking a relief in the form of disposal of some representation and for setting aside the panel dated 26.02.2026.

¶19

We find that no case is made out for interference. If at all, the petitioner is aggrieved by any subsequent steps taken in the recruitment process, he is required to raise the issues in the pending O.A. No. 73 of 2021.

¶20

¶21

With such liberty, we dispose of the Writ Petition.

¶22