03.03.2025 Court No. 18 Item No.82 (ML) (adeb) WPA 16913 of 2023 Ranajit Khan & Anr. -Versus- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Samim Ahammed Ms. Ambiya Khatun …..for the petitioners Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee Ms. Madhurima Sarkar …..for the WBMSC Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. Matter relates to selection process namely 6th SLST, 2013 conducted by the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission for appointment of Assistant Teachers in Madrasahs. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has participated in the aforesaid selection process with teacher training qualification but in spite of possessing qualification he was not given preference while giving appointment. In support of such contention, reliance is placed on order of a Coordinate Bench dated 14th June, 2022 passed on a writ petition being WPA 10450 of 2019 (Akmol Hossain & Ors. Vs. The State of West 2 Bengal & Ors.). It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that since in Akmol Hossain (supra) the concerned authority of West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission was directed to give preference to the petitioners in that writ petition since they were having teacher training qualification petitioner in the present case is entitled to get same treatment in the matter of appointment in the post of Assistant Teacher in connection with 6th SLST, 2013. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 (State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors.) in order to buttress the contention made on behalf of the petitioner that delay in approaching the Court even after expiry of the panel is not fatal. Learned advocate representing the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission submits that aforesaid selection process was complete long back, a panel was prepared on concluding the selection process on 30th June, 2018 and panel expired on 30th June, 2019 whereas present petition was filed on 18th July, 2023. According to the Commission, present writ petition is not maintainable since same was filed much after expiry of the panel. 3 Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking note of the materials available on record, it transpires that though petitioner appeared in 6th SLST, 2013 but he approached the Court in the present case on 18th July, 2023 which is approximately four years after expiry of the panel. Panel prepared in connection with the aforesaid selection process expired on 30th June, 2019. Though reliance is placed on the order passed in Akmol Hossain (supra) but petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of the ratio of Akmol Hossain (supra) since that writ petition was filed on 14th June, 2019 that is prior to expiry of the panel. In the present case, it appears that petitioner is fence sitter. He filed the writ petition four years after the expiry of panel. It is trite law that after expiry of panel candidate loses right to agitate his grievance in connection with a particular selection process. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, one reported in (1996) 9 SCC 309 (State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Harish Chandra & Ors.) and another reported in (2009) 2 SCC 706 (Girdhar Kumar Dadhich & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.). 4 Ratio of Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra) does not come in aid of the petitioner since that judgment was rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein an exception was carved out based on latches, delay and acquiescence which would be valid ground to dismiss the claim of the aspirants of employment. It was also observed therein that such exceptions would not apply to those cases where judgment pronounced by Court was judgment in rem with intention to benefit all similarly situated persons irrespective of whether they have approached Court or not. However, such situation is not prevalent in the present case as the order passed in Akmol Hossain (supra) is not judgment in rem. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) 5