Calcutta High Court
FMA/1216/2024 of DIBYAKANTI PURKAIT Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 24 July 2026
24.07.2026 Court no.13 sp F.M.A. 1216 of 2024 With CAN 1 of 2024 Dibyakanti Purkait Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee, Mr. Debjit Dutta. ..for the appellant. Ms. Reshmi Ghosh, Ms. Renesa Dey. ..for the State. Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya, Mr. Bibek Datta. ..for the
Sl. No.6
24.07.2026
Court no.13
sp
F.M.A. 1216 of 2024
With
CAN 1 of 2024
Dibyakanti Purkait
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Dyutiman Banerjee,
Mr. Debjit Dutta.
..for the appellant.
Ms. Reshmi Ghosh,
Ms. Renesa Dey.
..for the State.
Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya,
Mr. Bibek Datta.
..for the W.B.B.S.E.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
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 appeal is directed against the order dated 29th July, 2024 passed by a Single Bench of this Court in W.P.A. No. 18229 of 2024.
2. The writ petitioner sought regularization of his appointment as Assistant Teacher in Ramdevpur Junior High School, South 24-Parganas. It is an admitted position that the writ petitioner was appointed in violation of the prevalent rules for recruitment and there was no sanctioned post under which the writ petitioner could have been appointed by the school in question.
3. The writ petitioner, therefore, does not have any right of any permanent appointment or absorption in the school or much less approval of the same by the said authority.
4. Reliance is placed on an order of a Single Bench dated 2nd May, 2008 being WP No. 641 of 2008 (Kuntal Sardar & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.), the Single Bench appeared to have directed the approval of teachers appointed in the school only by virtue of long length of their services.
5. It further appears that the school in the said case did not oppose the prayer of the writ petitioners therein. It is not known as to whether the said State authority were at all served and the Single Bench could have satisfied itself as regards the service. There is no such recording in the order dated 2nd May, 2008.
6. In any event, the order dt 2nd May, 2008 is ex facie illegal and in violation of the dicta of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1. The Single Bench has, therefore, rightly dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order.
7. In that view of the matter, FMA 1216 of 2024 shall stand dismissed.
8. Consequently, all connected applications, if any, shall also stand dismissed.
9. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. All the parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)
(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.