FMA/566/2026 of BANK OF INDIA AND ORS Vs SUBHALAKSHMI RAY AND ORS on 19 August 2026

1. Heard the learned advocates representing the parties.

2. The learned Single Judge after considering an objection of the present appellants/Bank that they are not covered by the directions contained in paragraph 47 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.9586 of 2024 [in the matter of State of West Bengal Vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and others] rejected such objection of the Bank and proceeded to dispose of the writ petition in the following terms: “7. The issue as to whether the bank would be obliged to comply the direction passed in paragraph 47 of the aforesaid judgment fell for consideration before this Court in WPA 21604 of 2025 (Samrat

Goswami and Anr. Vs. State Bank of India & Ors.). The Court vide judgment dated 17th March, 2026 held that the previous employer of the candidates who lost their job in view of the aforesaid judgment would be bound to reappoint the said candidates after verification whether the candidates are enlisted in the list of tainted candidates published by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission in its official portal.

8. The ratio laid down in Samrat Goswami (supra) will apply in the present case.

9. In the instant case the application made by the petitioner is pending for a considerable period of time. The bank is, accordingly, directed to verify as to whether the petitioner’s name is enlisted in the list of tainted candidates published by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission in its official portal.

10. If the petitioner’s name is not appearing in the list of tainted candidates, then the bank shall take steps to reappoint the petitioner in her previous position by maintaining her seniority and other entitlements including increments. There shall be no break in service of the petitioner. If the post where the petitioner was serving is not readily available, then a supernumerary post may be created in terms of the direction passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

11. Steps shall be taken by the bank at the earliest but positively within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.”

3. The learned advocate for the Bank/appellants does not dispute a fact that there is no distinction in the case of the present writ petitioner, with the case of Samrat Goswami and another Vs. State Bank of India and others, disposed of by judgment dated 17.03.2026, passed by the learned Single Judge. The same was assailed by the Bank before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Civil) No. 17456 of 2026. The Hon’ble Apex Court by an order dated 27.05.2026 dismissed the Special Leave Petition. He submits that the Apex Court’s order dated 27.05.2026 does not show any consideration or declaration on which the writ petitioner can rely upon as a precedent in the present proceeding.

4. We have considered the submission of the learned advocate for the appellants/Bank.

5. The submission is ultimately aimed at raising an issue that paragraph 47 of the judgment in the case of Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and others (supra) does not apply to the Bank. We find that such issue is already settled by an order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.A.21604 of 2005 in the case of Samrat Goswami and another Vs. State Bank of India and others. The Bank therein, unsuccessfully challenged the order before the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.17456 of 2026.

6. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge maintaining parity with Samrat Goswami, the writ petitioner in W.P.A. 21604 of 2005(supra), in the present intra court appeal.

7. The appeal is dismissed.

8. The application being CAN 1 of 2026 also stands disposed of.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)

(Partha Pratim Roy, J.)