08.08.2025. Court No.13 Item No. 5 ap M.A.T. No. 978 of 2024 With I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024 And I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2025 Arnab Pramanick Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Arnab Pramanick. …Appellant (In Person). Re: CAN 1 of 2024 (Condonation of delay) 1. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of about 103 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. Having heard the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant as also considering the statements made in the said application, this Court is satisfied with the grounds indicated therein, as sufficiently explaining delay of 103 days in preferring the appeal. 3. In view of the above, the application for condonation of delay being CAN 1 of 2024 is allowed and disposed of. 4. There will be no order as to costs. Re: MAT 978 of 2024 5. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be taken on record. 6. The instant intra court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th December, 2023 2 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WPA 1330 of 2018. The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 7. The grievance of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that he participated in a selection process to the post of Sahayak against Employment Notification dated 4th November, 2013 issued by the Chairman, District Level Selection Committee and District Magistrate, South 24 Parganas. 8. The examination and interview processes were completed and final panel list of successful candidates was published on 27th February, 2015. The writ petitioner appeared in the Category of Unreserved (Meritorious Sportsman). 9. A twofold grievance was raised by the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge, firstly that in the same category of Unreserved (Sportsman) one Abir Dutta Chowdhury was selected and appointed. He worked for a period of two months and resigned thereafter. The petitioner being the second candidate in the said category in the waiting list, ought to have been offered the post. The second argument of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that the candidates selected against Serial Nos.5 to 8 did not feature either in the original merit list or participate in the examination in the first place. 10. In so far as the first arguments are concerned, the learned Single Judge applied the dicta of the 3 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manoj Manu & Anr. – Vs. – Union of India & Ors. reported in (2013) 12 Supreme Court Cases 171. In the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India carved out a distinction between the two categories of candidates. Category “A” was the candidates, who initially joined but subsequently resigned and quit and Category “B” was those candidates, who were recommended for appointment but did not join at all in the first place. It was held in the said decision that against the vacancies created in the first category, wait listed candidates cannot be appointed. The vacancy is required to be notified afresh and filled up. 11. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly applied the dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on the subject in rejecting the first argument of the appellant/writ petitioner. 12. In so far as the second argument is concerned, the learned Single Judge considered the affidavit filed by the District Panchayat & Rural Development Officer, South 24 Parganas i.e. the Recruitment Authority that the respondent nos.5 to 8 were appointed from the OBC “A” Category in a second waiting list created for them. 13. The category wise waiting list can always be created in a selection process, which involves various categories of reserved posts. The learned Single Judge also noted that the recruitment process factored in a 4 Notification dated 2nd July, 2010 issued by the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal which stipulated at paragraphs 4, 10 and 11 that a wait listed panel survive either until all posts were duly filled up or for a period of one year whichever is earlier. 14. Admittedly, the first representation made by the petitioner was on 19th February, 2016 albeit before one year and expiry of the panel but all the vacant posts were duly filled up by them with regular appointment letters being issued. The panel stood extinguished thereafter. 15. The resignation of Mr. Abir Dutta Chowdhury, two months after issuance of appointment letter, joined and the vacancy created cannot come to the aid of the petitioner or create any right in him. The waiting list must be deemed to have expired immediately after filling up of all posts, two months prior to the resignation of Mr. Abir Dutta Chowdhury. 16. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the decision of the learned Single Judge calls for no interference. M.A.T. 978 of 2024 must fail and is hereby dismissed. 17. In view of dismissal of the appeal itself, the connected application being CAN 2 of 2025 shall also stand dismissed. 18. There will be no order as to costs. 5 19. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)