Calcutta High Court
FMA/1403/2022 of SUSMITA BHATTACHARYA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 25 September 2026
ct no. 13 Sl. 12 sp F.M.A. 1403 of 2022 With CAN 1 of 2022 With CAN 2 of 2024 Susmita Bhattacharya -Versus- State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sanjib Seth. …for the appellant. Ms. Manju Agarwal, Mr. M. Jana. ..for the State. Re: CAN 2 of 2024 1. CAN 2 of 2024 is an application for
25-09-2026
ct no. 13
Sl. 12
sp
F.M.A. 1403 of 2022
With
CAN 1 of 2022
With
CAN 2 of 2024
Susmita Bhattacharya
-Versus-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Sanjib Seth.
…for the appellant.
Ms. Manju Agarwal,
Mr. M. Jana.
..for the State.
Re: CAN 2 of 2024
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. CAN 2 of 2024 is an application for recall of the order dated 2nd August, 2024 passed by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court.
2. Sufficient grounds have been made out explaining the absence of the appellant and/or its advocate on 2nd August, 2024.
3. Hence, the order is recalled and the appeal along with all connected applications are restored to its original file and number.
4. CAN 2 of 2024 is allowed and disposed of. Re: F.M.A. 1403 of 2012
5. The subject matter of the appeal is an order dated 22nd February, 2022 passed by a Single Bench of this Court.
6. The facts of the instant case are that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a private unaided school in the year 2016. During the COVID pandemic, she was required to take classes online which she was unable to do. Pursuant to such inability, the petitioner submitted a letter of resignation which the respondents accepted and acted upon though no formal communication was issued to the appellant.
7. The petitioner claims to have been forced to submit the letter of resignation. The petitioner has not produced any complaint to any authority except a letter when to the Hon’ble Chief Minister that she was compelled by the school management to resign.
8. This Court also finds that the writ petition was filed only in the year 2022, two long years after the said letter of resignation. The Single Bench did not find favour with the petitioner and dismissed the writ petition.
9. This Court is in complete agreement with the views expressed by the Single Bench.
10. Had the petitioner been compelled to submit a letter of resignation she would have in the normal course registered a complaint with the local police station. In any event this Court finds that the writ petitioner had resigned because she was not familiar with an online teaching process. She has specifically averred in the letter of resignation that she cannot teach students online despite the COVID pandemic prevailing at the relevant point of time.
11. This Court finds no merit in the appeal.
12. FMA 1403 of 2022 fails and is hereby dismissed.
13. Consequently, CAN 1 of 2022 shall also stand dismissed.
14. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) (Anuj Singh, J.)