Calcutta High Court
WPA(P)/520/2025 of NARAYAN MAITY Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 29 September 2026
Item No.30 Ct. No. 1 RP IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA(P)/520/2025 SRI NARAYAN MAITY ]… Petitioner VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. ]… Respondents Appearance : Mr. Achyut Basu. Ms. Punam Basu Mr. Anirban Saha Mr.
ORDER SHEET
WBCHCA0550612025
Item No.30
Ct. No. 1
RP
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
WPA(P)/520/2025
SRI NARAYAN MAITY
]… Petitioner
VS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
]… Respondents
Appearance :
Mr. Achyut Basu.
Ms. Punam Basu
Mr. Anirban Saha
Mr. Srikumar Chakraborty
Mr. Amritansu Sengupta
Ms. Sulagna Sen
]… Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. Rajdeep Mazumdar, Ld. AAG
Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, Ld. AGP
Mr. Madhu Jana
Mr. Gopal Krishna Sarkar
Mr. M.M. Ghosh
]… Advocate for State
Mr. Sarwar Jahan
Mr. Sumitava Chakraborty
]… Advocate for Respondent No.7
Mr. Subhrangsu Panda
Ms. Haritri Roy
] … Advocate for Respondent Nos.6, 9 and 10
CORAM: RAVINDRA VITHALRAO GHUGE,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
OM NARAYAN RAI J.
Date :29.09.2026
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.
Order
(Per Court)
1. We have heard the Learned Advocate for the Petitioner for quite some time.
2. The Petitioner claims to be a social worker, who is around 75 years of age. He has no connection with any educational institution. There is no such description in the memo of Petition indicating that he is working in the educational sector or in an educational institution.
3. It is stated in the Petition that, ‘the Petitioner is associated with Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Bengal. In several institutions, there is corruption. Several persons are indulging in corruption. Corruption has been made even while appointing employees’. Besides such allegations, there is no research made by the Petitioner. No data is placed before us to indicate as to which are the employees were illegally selected, appointed and inducted into employment.
4. This Court cannot start a roving enquiry on the basis of reckless allegations, which are not supported with any data or information. The object of filing a PIL is to advance the cause of the public, to do good for the public. In the instant case, we do not find any instance indicating that a particular employee was illegally appointed. Moreover, in rare situations can a PIL Petition be entertained in service jurisprudence.
5. In such circumstances, we do not desire to entertain such a PIL Petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. (OM NARAYAN RAI , J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE) Chief Justice