Calcutta High Court

WPA/1213/2026 of PRABHAT RANJAN Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS on 12 August 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

2026,

W.P.A. 1213 of 2026,

A. Roy,J.

Form J(2)

Sl. No. 34

AB

High Court at Calcutta

In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Roy

W.P.A. 1213 of 2026

Prabhat Ranjan

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the petitioner

:

Mr. Debajit Kundu

For the State

:

Mr. Kunaljit Bhattacharjee, Ld. AGP

Mr. Subhankar Dutta

Heard on

:

August 12, 2026

Judgment on :

:

August 12, 2026

[ IN COURT ]

Aniruddha Roy,J.

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

2. The petitioner claims to be an Assistant Teacher of a school. The petitioner contends that, he had applied for prior permission through the Managing Committee of the school before the Jurisdictional District Inspector of Schools but the District Inspector of Schools did not grant the prior permission for completing the Master degree of the petitioner, though the Managing Committee of the school granted permission.

3. Referring to a communication dated May 23, 2017, annexure P-5 at page 31 to the writ petition Mr. Debajit Kundu, learned advocate

W.P.A. 1213 of 2026, A. Roy,J.

2 appearing for the petitioner submits that, the school had submitted a prayer before the D.I. on May 24, 2017 but the D.I. failed to grant prior permission for completing Master degree by the petitioner.

4. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the materials on record it appears to this Court that, the communication of the school dated May 23, 2017, annexure P-5 at page 31 to the writ petition shows that the school had applied for post facto permission from the D.I. The law is well settled that, after Control of Expenditure Act came into effect, prior permission from the D.I. is mandatory. Therefore, post facto permission even though granted could not be considered as a valid prior permissions and the question of post facto permission would not arise even.

5. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Court finds that there is no merit in this writ petition and the claim of the petitioner is unjustified and not a valid claim in the eye of law.

6. Accordingly, this writ petition being W.P.A. 1213 of 2026 stands dismissed, without any order as to costs.

7. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously.

(Aniruddha Roy, 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