Calcutta High Court

WP.ST/88/2026 of PRODIP KUMAR SINGHA Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 22 June 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

Court No.04 B.K.N W.P.S.T. 88 of 2026 Prodip Kumar Singha Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Suman Banerjee, Mr. Stayam Pandey … for the Petitioner. Ms. Chandreyi Alam, Ld. AGP, Ms. Kakali Dutta … for the State. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the writ

S/L 19

22.06.2026

Court No.04

B.K.N

W.P.S.T. 88 of 2026

Prodip Kumar Singha

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Suman Banerjee,

Mr. Stayam Pandey

… for the Petitioner.

Ms. Chandreyi Alam, Ld. AGP,

Ms. Kakali Dutta

… for the State.

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

1. Heard the learned advocate for the writ petitioner/applicant.

2. In terms of an advertisement No. R/MT/01/2014, the petitioner applied for being considered in the process of recruitment to the post in Medical Technologist Cadre of West Bengal Sub-ordinate Health Services under the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of West Bengal. In the recruitment process it was found that he did not possess a requisite essential qualification specified in the advertisement, which is not in dispute.

3. The learned advocate for the petitioner, however, submits that earlier in 2010 he was engaged as a Lab Technician in the West Bengal State AIDS Prevention & Control Society. Such submission does not inure to the petitioner’s benefit.

4. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process issued much thereafter in 2014 with open eyes, knowing that he was required to possess the essential

2 qualification of higher secondary pass with physics, chemistry and biology which he did not possess. He did not possess the equivalent qualification also, therefore, by placing reliance on his earlier recruitment dated 07.06.2010, the petitioner cannot substantiate his claim which was required to be considered with reference to the terms and conditions/essential qualification laid down in the advertisement.

5. The petitioner’s claim was, therefore, in our opinion, rightly rejected by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal by an order dated 09.07.2024 passed in O.A. 838 of 2023, which requires no interference in exercise of extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.

7. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)

(Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead