0909 2025 TUESDAY Court : CB-07 Item : AD-04 Status : ADO ID : 266057 AR : NANDY IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 19472 OF 2023 CAN 1 OF 2025 SAMIT MAITI & ORS. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. MR. SAPTANGSU BASU, SR. ADVOCATE MR. SANKHA MAITY, ADVOCATE MR. ADITYA SINHA, ADVOCATE ……for the Petitioners MR. ARJUN ROY MUKHERJEE, LD. AGP MR. D. DASGUPTA, ADVOCATE ……for the State CAN 1 OF 2025 1. This is an application for clarification of the order dated 06.08.2025. 2. Mr. Basu, learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioners, submits that by an order dated 06.08.2025, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction upon respondent no. 3 to extend the benefits under the Notifications dated 16.10.2020 and 17.04.2023 to the petitioners, subject to verification that they are graduates and possess the requisite technical qualifications, namely diplomas or certificates in computer applications. Mr. Basu further submits that no time limit has been specified for extending such benefits, and he prays that a time frame be fixed within which the benefits shall be granted to the petitioners. 3. Mr. Basu submits that such clarification of the order can be granted, and in support of his contention, he relies on the decision reported in (2009) 2 SCC 164 (K.A. Ansari & Anr. vs. Indian Airlines Limited). 4. Mr. Roy Mukherjee, learned Advocate representing the State, leaves the matter to the discretion of the Court. 5. A bare perusal of the decision cited by Mr. Basu, suggests that a proposition has been laid down in the said decision to the effect that :- “when a proceeding stand terminated by final disposal of the writ-petition, it is not open to court to reopen the proceedings by means of miscellaneous application in respect of a matter which provides fresh cause of action. If this principle is not followed, there would be confusion and chaos and finality of P a g e | 2 proceedings would cease to have any meaning. There is, however, no prohibition on a party applying for clarification, if the order is not clear and the party against whom it has been made is trying to take advantage because the order is couched in ambiguous or equivocal words.” 6. Undisputedly, the order dated 06.08.2025 indicates that although a direction was given to respondent no. 3 to extend the benefits under the two Notifications, no time limit was fixed. In view thereof, respondent no. 3 is directed to extend the benefits to the petitioners under the Notifications dated 16.10.2020 and 17.04.2023, in terms of the order dated 06.08.2025, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With these clarifications, the application being CAN 1 of 2025 is disposed of. WPA 19472 OF 2023 8. Mr. Basu, learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioners, has further pointed out that certain typographical errors have crept into the order dated 06.08.2025. 9. On the 2nd and 6th pages of the order dated 06.08.2025, the Notification number and date should read ‘9008-F(P)’ and ‘16.09.2021’ instead of ‘90008-F(P)’ and ‘11.09.2021,’ respectively. 10. The abbreviation of Data Entry Operator, which was used as ‘DTE’ in the order dated 06.08.2025, should be corrected to ‘DEO’ wherever it appears. 11. Such mistakes being apparent, office is directed to correct such mistakes as pointed out. 12. This order may be read conjointly with the order dated 06.08.2025. (PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE, J.) P a g e | 3