10th Feb., 2026 Item no.D/L 36 Court No. 18 Pradip, A.R.(Ct.) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Case No. WPA 26020 of 2025 In the matter of : Jyangra Adarsha Vidyalaya (H.S.) …. Petitioner VS. The State of West Bengal & Ors. ….Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Prantick Ghosh Ms. Poulomi Saha ….Advocates For the WBCSSC: Mr. Sunit Kumar Roy Ms. Susmita Mondal ….Advocates For the WBBSE: Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya Mr. Bibek Dutta ….Advocates For the State: Mr. Suddhadev Adak Ms. Sipra Saha ….Advocates 1. The school has filed the instant writ petition through the government nominee of the managing committee of the school seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities to take strict action by initiating disciplinary proceeding against the private respondent who is a teacher of the school. 2. Learned advocate representing the private respondent submits that the instant writ petition has been filed upon misrepresentation of facts. It has been submitted that the teacher-in-charge does not have Page 2 any information as regards filing of the instant writ petition. Prayer has been made to dismiss the instant writ petition with exemplary costs. 3. It appears that certain complaints were raised against the private respondent before the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. The Board has forwarded the complaint to the District Inspector of Schools for enquiry. 4. A preliminary investigation report regarding the complaint made against the private respondent has been placed before this Court by the learned advocate representing the State respondents. 5. The observation of the enquiry team appearing in the preliminary investigation report mentions that the leave adjustment report prepared by the leave review committee is found to be satisfactory to the private respondent as well as the managing committee of the school. 6. No complaint has been reported with regard to the service code of conduct of the teachers and non-teaching staff of the school. 7. No complaint has been received from the teachers, students or guardians with regard to the non-compliance of the service code of conduct and behavioral approach. 8. The teacher’s representative member in the managing committee and the teacher-in-charge has clearly stated that they did not have any prior information regarding the instant court case that has been filed by the Person Interested in Education, that is, Ashesh Kumar Biswas. 9. The enquiry team members suggested that all teaching and non- teaching staff adheres to the service conduct rules in the greater interest of the institution. The teaching and non-teaching staff was Page 3 directed to maintain mutual coexistence, harmony and cooperation in the interest of the students. 10. The preliminary investigation report has been countersigned by the District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, North 24 Parganas on 15th January, 2026. 11. Learned advocate representing the Board submits, upon instruction that, the Board has already received the said preliminary investigation report. 12. As the complaint lodged by the petitioner appears to has been investigated by the enquiry team constituted by the District Inspector of Schools and the preliminary investigation report has been forwarded to the Board, accordingly, the Board shall take necessary steps in the matter in accordance with law on perusal of the same. 13. The writ petition stands disposed of. 14. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Amrita Sinha, J.)