Calcutta High Court
MAT/727/2026 of SUSHIL SHIKARY AND ORS. Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 24 August 2026
ct no. 13 Sl. 17 sp M.A.T. 727 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Sushil Shikary & Ors. -Versus- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sayantan Adhya, Mr. Parvej Alam. …for the appellants. Mr. Pradip Paul, Mr. Goutam Sardar. ..for the State. Mr. Majujendra Narayan Roy, Mr. Gourav Halder.
24-08-2026
ct no. 13
Sl. 17
sp
M.A.T. 727 of 2026
With
CAN 1 of 2026
Sushil Shikary & Ors.
-Versus-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Sayantan Adhya,
Mr. Parvej Alam.
…for the appellants.
Mr. Pradip Paul,
Mr. Goutam Sardar.
..for the State.
Mr. Majujendra Narayan Roy,
Mr. Gourav Halder.
..for the respondent no. 5.
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. The appeal is directed against an order dated 20th March, 2026 passed by a Single Bench of this Court in WPA 10988 of 2025.
2. The Single Bench found that there was no contempt on the part of the respondents. The writ petitioners claiming to be census enumerators in the past had participated in the recruitment process for the post of Sub- Inspector, Food & Supply, Grade-III for the year 2014. The said recruitment process came under the scrutiny of both the Public Service Commission and a complaint came to be lodged with the Anti-Fraud Section, Detective Department, Kolkata in connection thereto.
3. Several documents including hard copies of OMR sheets, tabulation sheets, score sheets of the qualified candidates, files of nomination and the original applications of all candidates in the recruitment process were seized by the police. The writ petitioners claimed that the respondents had not recruited them despite they featuring in the panel. They alternatively contended before the Single Bench that they were illegally not empanelled by the respondent/West Bengal Staff Selection Commission.
4. The direction in the writ petition being WPA 10988 of 2025 of the Single Bench was that the writ petitioners should be given letters of appointments and if they are found eligible, liable to be empanelled.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents before this Court apart from challenging the maintainability of the appeal submits that the writ petitioners/appellants did not qualify in the first stage, i.e., written examination. The question of their being empanelled or being considered under the exempted category, therefore, did not and cannot arise. This is the essence of their submissions in the contempt proceedings.
6. This Court, however, finds that the appeal itself may not be maintainable in the absence of a challenge to the principal order passed in the writ petition of which contempt is alleged. Once the Single Bench finds that there is no contempt, such order cannot be appealed against and an appeal would lie only against the principal order disposing of the writ petition.
7. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the appeal was maintainable, this Court finds that the writ petitioners/appellants did not qualify in the written examination in the first place. The question of their being empanelled or being considered in the exempted category, therefore, did not and could not have arisen.
8. In the light of the above, no relief can be granted to the writ petitioners/appellants in the instant appeal.
9. MAT 727 of 2026 fails and hereby dismissed.
10. Consequently, CAN 1 of 2026 shall stand disposed of.
11. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. 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.)