Calcutta High Court
WPA(P)/230/2026 of MANJUR ALAM AND ORS. Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 10 September 2026
No. 1 RP WPA(P) 230 OF 2026 MANJUR ALAM & ORS. Vs THE STATE OF WEST BEJGAL & Ors. Mr. Md. Nauroz Rahber Mr. Imtiaz Akhtar ….. For the Petitioners Mr. D.N. Ray, Ld. GP Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, Ld. AGP Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sinha Ms. Sruti Datta Mr. Madhu Jana Ms. Puja Sonkar
10.09.2026
Item No.23
Ct. No. 1
RP
WPA(P) 230 OF 2026
MANJUR ALAM & ORS.
Vs
THE STATE OF WEST BEJGAL & Ors.
Mr. Md. Nauroz Rahber
Mr. Imtiaz Akhtar
….. For the Petitioners
Mr. D.N. Ray, Ld. GP
Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra, Ld. AGP
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sinha
Ms. Sruti Datta
Mr. Madhu Jana
Ms. Puja Sonkar
…… For State
ORDER (PER COURT)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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. The Petitioners claim to be guardians of students, children and wards, in their capacity of being social workers. They desire to challenge the selection and appointment of certain individuals, after the learned Single Judge of this Court has delivered an order dated 28.06.2017 in AST 127 of 2017, directing the District Inspector of Schools to approve the appointment of those Petitioners.
2. This Petition is aimed at dislodging selected candidates, who are in service in the light of the facts noted above. The law on filing PIL Petitions in service matters is well settled in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court deliverd in the case of Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors. reported in 1998(7) SCC 273 and the judgment delivered in Ashoke Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal reported in 2004(3) SCC 349.
3. We expressed our disinclination to entertain this PIL Petition. The Petitioners pray for an order.
4. In view of above, we find that this Petition is, therefore, dismissed. We are inclined to impose cost of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited by the Petitioners in this Court within 30 days from today.
5. Learned advocate for the Petitioner urged the Court that cost may not be imposed. Considering the request made, we are not imposing costs.
(TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE) Chief Justice
2