WPA/1793/2026 of MINTU SARDAR AND ORS Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS on 19 August 2026

1. Affidavit-of-service, filed in Court today is taken on record.

2. Mr. Shamim ul Bari, learned Advocate with Ms. Taniya Bhowmik, learned Advocate appears for the petitioners.

A.Roy, J.

3. Mr. Kunaljit Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Government Pleader with Ms. Esha Acharya, learned Advocate appears for the State.

4. The petitioners are those whose service was terminated but subsequently had been restored by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as untainted candidates. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as quoted in Paragraph 8 of the writ petition is also reproduced herein below: ‘Your petitioners state that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Judgment on 3rd April, 2025 in Civil Appeal No. SLP(C)- 9586 of 2024 State of West Bengal Vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Ors. it has been clarified in paragraph 47 which is as follows: "Some of the appointed candidates who do not fall within the category of tainted candidates may have previously worked in different departments of the State Government or with autonomous bodies, etc. In such cases, although their appointments are cancelled, these candidates will have the right to apply to their previous departments or autonomous bodies to continue in service with those entities. These applications must be processed by the respective government departments or bodies within three months, and the candidates will be allowed to resume their positions. Further, the period between the termination of their previous appointment and their rejoining will not be considered a break in service. Their seniority and other entitlements will be preserved, and they will be eligible for increments.

A.Roy, J.

However, for the period they were employed under the disputed appointment, no wages will be paid by the State Government or autonomous bodies. Further, if required and necessary, supernumerary posts may be created for persons appointed the interregnum.".’

5. The petitioners being the assistant teachers of their respective schools had attempted to apply through portal seeking transfer but the portal did not allow then to apply with the plea that, their five years service had not been completed.

6. Observation of the Supreme Court, inter alia, says that, the seniority and other entitlements of the candidates will be preserved.

7. In view of the above, the petitioners shall be at liberty to make appropriate representation before the respondent no. 2 praying for their transfer.

8. In the event, such representation is submitted the respondent no. 2 shall decide the same by passing a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law, but positively within eight weeks from the date of receiving the representations.

9. Learned State Advocate submits that, the Utsashree Portal is not functional, at present.

10. It is made clear that, this order shall not create any right or equity in favour of the petitioners, if they are not eligible to the prayer strictly in accordance with law.

A.Roy, J.

11. Since affidavits are not called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.

12. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition WPA 1793 of 2026 stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.

13. Parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Aniruddha Roy, J.)