Court No. 24 13.11.2025 (Item No.13 ) (AB) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side W.P.A. 1549 of 2025 Subinita Banerjee VS The State of West Bengal & Ors. Ms. Dipanwita Ganguly, Advocate …. For the petitioner Mr. Swapan Kumar Datta, Ld. Sr. Advocate Mr. Tapas Kumar Dey, Advocate …. For the State Mr. Firdous Samim, Advocate Ms. Gopa Biswas, Advocate Mr. Mainak Ghosal, Advocate Ms. Ankita Ghosh, Advocate Ms. Rajashree Saha, Advocate Ms. Salini Bhattacharjee, Advocate Mr. Md. Imjamamul Islam, Advocate Mr. Hasanuz Zaman Molla, Advocate …. For respondent nos. 3 & 5 Mr. Debu Chowdhury, Advocate (VC) …. For respondent no. 4 1. The petitioner seeks redressal in the form of challenging the report of the enquiry committee, which has dismissed the complaint of harassment at work place by the petitioner against her immediate boss. 2. Mr. Firdous Samim, learned advocate appears for the respondent nos. 3 and 5 states that the respondent no. 5 being an unaided educational institution, is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He cites a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2025(4) SCC 498 (paragraph 75) as well as a decision of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble 2 Court reported in 2024 SCC online Cal 2923. Both decisions are clear and unambiguous that an educational institution, even if it is to be considered as discharging public duty, the complaint must have a direct nexus with the work of the said institution. 3. In the present case, admittedly there is no such nexus and the relief of the petitioner lies elsewhere, which is an alternative and an unequivocal efficacious remedy. 4. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, the writ petition being W.P.A. 1549 of 2025 is dismissed. 5. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 6. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be given to the parties, if applied for. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)