Dr. Senjuti Chowdhury Vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Dr. Senjuti Chowdhury Vs Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Limited relief only: respondent nos. 3 and 4 directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28 March 2026 in accordance with law, with liberty to provide any such relief as can be provided; WPO/180/2026 disposed of accordingly. No quashing of the advertisement, no direction to permit participation in the selection, and no grant of regular pay scale, equal pay or absorption.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, six months over the age limit prescribed in advertisement no.3 of 2026 dated 11 March 2026, may be permitted to participate in the KMC selection process on the strength of a co-ordinate Bench order (WP/25/2016). +1 more

Court's answer

On perusal of the co-ordinate Bench order relied upon by the petitioner, the Court found that the circumstances justifying relaxation there (long service with no earlier selection process) do not exist in the petitioner's case, so the precedent does not support permitting her to participate despite being over-age.

Ratio / Principle

At the stage when the petitioner could not join in 2017 for want of a no objection certificate from her erstwhile employer, she was at liberty to approach the Court for appropriate relief but chose not to do so.

Key takeaways

The petitioner's contractual service with the respondent/KMC of about three and a half years prima facie cannot be considered a substantial period of service in a contractual job.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Constitutional writ (Original Side, High Court at Calcutta) by Dr. Senjuti Chowdhury challenging KMC advertisement no.3 of 2026 (dated 11 March 2026) and seeking (i) permission to participate in the selection process despite being six months over-age, pleading parity with a co-ordinate Bench order in WP/25/2016 (3 May 2017), and (ii) regular pay scale on “equal pay for equal work” and absorption as Permanent Medical Officer. The Court distinguished the co-ordinate Bench precedent (“no such circumstances exist” here), observing that in 2017, when denied joining for want of a no objection certificate, the petitioner could have approached the Court but did not, and that about three and a half years of contractual service (engagement submitted to be under NUHM, a specific project) is prima facie not substantial. The writ was disposed of with limited relief: respondent nos. 3 and 4 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28 March 2026 in accordance with law, with liberty to grant any feasible relief.

OD-1

WPO/180/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE

DR. SENJUTI CHOWDHURY

-VERSUS-

KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

BEFORE:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL) Date : 10^th April, 2026.

Appearance: Mr. Victor Chatterjee, Adv. …. for the petitioner.

Mr. Alak Kr. Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Swpan Kumar Debnath, Adv. ...for the KMC.

The Court: 1. The writ application has been preferred challenging advertisement no.3 of 2026 dated 11^th March, 2026 so that conscionable justice may

be administered by quashing the same. The petitioner has further prayed for regular pay scale and other benefits of Permanent Medical Officers from the date of her joining in the service of the respondent no.1 on application of the principle of “equal pay for equal work” and further direction to regularize and/or absorb your petitioner as Permanent Medical Officers of the respondent no.1. Finally, the petitioner prays that she may be allowed to participate in the selection process without prejudice.

Admittedly, the petitioner is six months over-age to qualify for

applying for the job as per the advertisement no.3 of 2026 dated 11^th March, 2026

2

issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC). Relying upon an order passed by a co-ordinate Bench in WP/25/2016 dated 3^rd May, 2017 learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner is on similar footing, the petitioner may be permitted to participate in the examination.

On perusal of the order of co-ordinate Bench relied upon by the petitioner, it appears that the Court observed that as no selection process was conducted during the long period served by the petitioner therein, granted opportunity to the petitioner to participate in view of the fact that if any selection process had been conducted earlier, the petitioner would be within the permitted age limit and would have had a chance of appearing in the examination. In the present no such circumstances exist. The petitioner was offered appointment on 24^th July, 2017 to the post of Medical Officer under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the petitioner could not join as the petitioner was not granted a ‘no objection certificate’ from the erstwhile employer.

This Court is of the view that at that stage, the petitioner was on liberty to approach the Court for appropriate relief, which the petitioner chose not to do. After five years the petitioner responding to an advertisement for the post of a contractual medical officer has joined the respondent/corporation on contractual basis. As such, it appears that at present the petitioner is in service with the respondent/KMC for about three and a half years which, prima facie, cannot be considered to be a substantial period of service in a contractual job.

It is submitted by Mr. Ghosh, learned senior counsel for the respondent/KMC that such contractual job performed by the petitioner herein is

3

under the National Urban Health Mission (NUHM) and, as such, the petitioner herein is engaged in a specific project of the Corporation and not under a contractual job directly under the KMC.

Considering the said facts of this case, this Court has no option but to dispose of the application with the following limited relief:

The respondent nos.3 and 4 shall consider the petitioner’s

representation dated 28^th March, 2026 in accordance with law and, if any such relief can be provided to the petitioner, the respondent authorities are at liberty to do so.

Accordingly, WPO180/2026 stands disposed of.

(SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.)

A.Sadhukhan