21/07 2026 AD/05/18 266312 NANDY (DO) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA/16396/2025 SOMU DAS VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Mr. Rajnil Mukherjee, Advocate Ms. Satabdi Dey, Advocate Mr. Samar Jyoti Majumder, Advocate ……for the Petitioner Mr. Partha Charkabroty, Advocate Mr. Arghya Chatterjee, Advocate ……for the State 1. Affidavit of service as filed be kept with the record. 2. The petitioner was appointed in the Social Welfare Section in the Office of the District Magistrate, Murshidabad, on 26.02.2014 as a Guarding Staff (Group-D) on a contractual engagement. 3. On 30.06.2014, the petitioner received a letter from the Manager of the Home for Lunatic Vagrants (Male) that he would be working as a Lower Division Assistant from that date, which is a Group-C category. The petitioner alleges that he was relieved of his duties as a Group-C staff sometime in 2022, though he has been in service as a Group-D staff from then on. 4. The petitioner has approached this Court by this writ- petition sometime in 2025, alleging that he should be given a Group-C status on the basis of the letter of 30.06.2014. 5. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and considered the record. 6. The very basis of the petitioner's grievance is unsubstantiated. The letter of appointment issued by the District Social Welfare Officer on 26.02.2014 has been issued by a person with authority to issue such P a g e | 2 appointment letter and the petitioner was employed as a Group-D staff as such. 7. The basis of the petitioner's rights or rather proposed rights, emanates from the letter of 30.06.2014 issued by the Manager. 8. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner admits that the Manager is not the authorized person to issue such a letter. In fact, the letter of 30.06.2014 cannot in any manner override the appointment letter issued by an authorized person on 26.02.2014. 9. The letter of 30.06.2014 is without any basis and cannot be construed to confer a right beyond the petitioner's entitlement, as he was employed as a Group-D staff and was never given the impression by the authorities that he would be employed as a Group-C staff. The petitioner is still in service and is continuing his service as a Group-D staff, for which he was employed. 10. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had ever discharged any responsibility or duty as a Group-C staff, such as the one mentioned in the letter of 30.06.2014. 11. The authenticity of the letter of 30.06.2014 has been seriously disputed by the learned Advocate appearing for the State. 12. The petitioner has failed to establish any right or entitlement to be inducted or promoted as a Group-C staff in the establishment. 13. In view of the above discussion and observations, the writ-petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.) P a g e | 3