Calcutta High Court
WPA/13663/2026 of SK. DILIP Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 5 October 2026
Item No.18 ML Subrata Bhattacharyya AR(C) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA No.13663 of 2026 Sk. Dilip -vs- State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Avijit Chakraborty …for the petitioner Mr. Iswarchandra Maiti Mr. Saswata Bhattacharyya Ms.
05-10-2026
Item No.18 ML
Subrata
Bhattacharyya
AR(C)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
WPA No.13663 of 2026
Sk. Dilip
-vs-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Avijit Chakraborty …for the petitioner Mr. Iswarchandra Maiti Mr. Saswata Bhattacharyya Ms. Rituparna Modak …for the respondent nos. 4 & 5
Ms. Indrani Chakraborty, AGP
Mr. Falguni Bandyopadhyay …for the State
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Perused the instructions forwarded by the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Howrah signed on September 28, 2026. A copy of the same has already been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner in Court today.
2. It appears therefrom that the service of the petitioner has been utilized at the office of the DI of Schools on condition that administrative functions of the school cannot be hampered.
3. The petitioner is an employee of the school and he would be bound to report to the school authority. The apprehension of the petitioner that his life and liberty will be at stake at the instance of the headmaster of the school can be taken care of if the petitioner raises a formal complaint before the police.
4. The petitioner cannot expect his salary to be paid by not attending the school and only reporting in the office of the District Inspector of Schools.
5. His submission that the school has only 65 students and there is already one group D staff to manage the school does not come to the aid of the petitioner. It is not for the petitioner to decide as to how many Group D staff will a school require. If there are excess staff in the school, then necessary steps for rationalization of the staff will be taken by the competent authority as and when required.
6. The prayer of the petitioner to permit him to report to the office of the DI of Schools cannot be accepted.
7. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
8. All parties are to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
9. Certified server copy of this order, if applied for, shall be made available to the parties. [Amrita Sinha, J]