Calcutta High Court
RVW/250/2025 of BABLU MULLICK Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 11 September 2026
ct no. 13 Sl. 3 sp R.V.W. 250 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025 In M.A.T. 408 of 2025 Bablu Mullick -Versus- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sudip Sarkar, Mr. Bitun Sarkar. …for the review applicant. Mr. Pinaki Bhattacharyya. ..for the DPSC, North 24-Parganas. 1. Affidavit of service
11-09-2026
ct no. 13
Sl. 3
sp
R.V.W. 250 of 2025
With
CAN 1 of 2025
In
M.A.T. 408 of 2025
Bablu Mullick
-Versus-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Sudip Sarkar,
Mr. Bitun Sarkar.
…for the review applicant.
Mr. Pinaki Bhattacharyya.
..for the DPSC, North 24-Parganas.
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. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.
2. Review is sought of the order dated 9th July, 2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MAT 408 of 2025.
3. The ground for review indicated is that the Co- ordinate Bench had failed to consider and address the submissions of the DPSC, North 24-Parganas that the original answer script of the review applicant was lost in a fire. However, a soft copy of the same was stored in a CD by the DPSC was produced by their counsel.
4. It is from the said C.D. that the marks of the applicant in the written examination were considered. It was found that the applicant even after award of 2 grace marks, obtained 40.129 marks as opposed to last empanelled OBC candidate who obtained 41.08 marks.
5. In the light of the above and given the fact that the recruitment process of the year 2006 and the panel expired 2 years later, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record. There is no evidence produced hitherto nor available to the applicant.
6. In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to invoke the provisions under Order 47 of the Code.
7. RVW 250 of 2025 fails and hereby dismissed.
8. Consequently, CAN 1 of 2025 shall stand dismissed.
9. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. 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.)
2