FMA/1119/2026 of ANIMA CHATTERJEE BANERJEE Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS on 16 September 2026

1. The subject appeal is directed against an order dated 5th August, 2026 passed by a Single Bench of this Court. The petitioner claims that she has not received any salary from the school. The writ petitioner/appellant claims that she was serving as non-teaching staff of Ramananda Centenary College, under Sidhu Kanhu Birsha University. The college is an aided college, i.e., receiving aid from the Government.

2. It appears from the record that the writ petitioner/appellant claims to have been appointed in the college vide letter dated 2nd July, 2015. Such letter does not find place in the record of the college. The letter does not bear the office memo number or dispatch number. There is no Governing Body resolution ratifying the petitioner’s appointment. In addition thereto this Court finds prior permission of the Director of Public Instructions was not taken before filling up the post in question. The post is not sanctioned by the State. Under what circumstances the petitioner was appointed as Library Peon in the college is not clear before this Court. The report filed by the college before the Single Bench has been annexed to the stay petition.

3. The normal process of recruitment has not been followed in the case of the petitioner. no academic qualification has been prescribed nor find place in the records of the college.

4. It appears that most of the purported orders appointing the petitioner and several other persons as casual staff, are signed by one Sujay Banerjee. There is also a letter from a subsequent President of the college, one Mr. Tudu permitting the petitioner to be reengaged after discontinuation from the college, if she withdraws criminal cases against the members of the Governing Body.

5. Having regard to the above, this Court finds that the petitioner is at best a temporary/casual employee. The Governing Body of the college represented before this Court has clearly stated that they have not authorized the appointment of the petitioner or any other casual staff.

6. Counsel for the State Mr. Gupta submits that there are no records whatsoever of any approval being given to the petitioner’s appointment in any position in the college.

7. This Court finds that there is no public element whatsoever in the engagement of the petitioner with the college in question. Her engagement is also shrouded with mystery and nepotism. It appears that one or two persons in the Governing Body has been calling the shots in effecting illegal appointments in the college. Such a practice cannot be countenanced by this Court. The writ petition, could not have been admitted by the Single Bench in the first place. It should have been dismissed based on the report of the college.

8. The college has recorded in its report that the petitioner is not a widow and her husband is very much alive.

9. Mr. P.S. Bhattacharya, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant’s husband is, in fact, alive and there are matrimonial proceedings pending against the husband.

10. This Court is, therefore, surprised as to how the writ petition before the Single Bench and the stay petition before this Court was affirmed by the petitioner as wife of late Ranjit Banerjee.

11. In the facts and circumstances aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the writ petition fraudulent and abuse of process of law. It was not maintainable before this Court.

12. WPA 13234 of 2026 shall stand dismissed. Consequently, FMA 1119 of 2026 along with CAN 1 of 2026 shall stand dismissed.

13. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.

14. There shall however be no order as to costs.

15. Urgent certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)

(Anuj Singh, J.)