15.07.2026 Sl. No.20(DL) Ct. No.14 AN IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. 3633 of 2026 Harulal Mandal Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Dilip Kumar Maiti Mr. Uttam Kumar Kamila Ms. Maitrayee Maiti …for the petitioner Mr. Pratik Dhar, Ld. Sr. Adv. Ms. Madhurima Sarkar …for the Madrasah Service Commission. Mr. Brijendra Pratap Singh Mr. Nripendra Pratap Singh … for the State 1. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks for direction upon the respondent authorities to consider the prayer of the petitioner for appointment in the post of Peon in Fakir Mahammad High Madrasah, Sub- division Ranaghat, Post Office and Police Station Ranaghat, District Nadia. 3. The petitioner contends that he was a wait-listed candidate for recruitment of the Group D Peon conducted for appointment in different Madrasah schools in the State. One Saburali Biswas was recommended for appointment in the said post. The said person joined on 25th July, 2025. However, subsequent thereto, he died on 7th September, 2025. The petitioner seeks that he be permitted to join as a Group D Peon from the wait-list panel consequent to demise of Saburali Biswas. On 1st November, 2025, the petitioner made a representation before the concerned authority seeking for his appointment. However, the same has not been considered. Hence this writ petition. 4. Mr. Dilip Kumar Maiti, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should be granted appointment since the candidate who has joined in the said post has already died on 7th September, 2025. 5. Mr. Pratik Dhar, learned senior advocate representing the Madrasah Commission submits that once a person joins, the wait-list candidates cannot claim any right to be appointed upon death of such a person. The vacancy goes to the future recruitment process as a fresh vacancy. To buttress his contention, he relies upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases (i) Union of India & ors. versus Subit Kumar Das reported at 2025 SCC Online SC 2243; (ii) Rakhi Ray & ors. versus High Court of Delhi & ors. reported at (2010) 2 SCC 637. He seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Upon hearing learned advocates for the respective parties, the only issue, which falls for consideration, is whether the petitioner being a wait-listed candidate can be granted appointment in the event of death of the candidate who has already joined in the post. 2 7. In order to examine the aforesaid issue, it would be apposite to reproduce the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subit Kumar Das (supra) as follows: “12. While considering the entitlement of the respondent to any relief on the basis of his placement in the Reserved Panel, it would be necessary to bear in mind the settled position that mere placement in the wait list does not create any vested right for being so appointed. The right to be considered for appointment would spring only in the contingency of a selected candidate not joining on his post. The wait list operates for a limited period. It cannot extend for an indefinite period and in any event after a fresh process of recruitment has commenced. This legal position is well settled and reference can be made to the decision of a three Judge Bench in Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Association v. State of Gujarat. In paragraph 9, i has been held as under: "9. A waiting list prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment. It is operative only for the contingency that if any of the selected candidates does not join then the person from the waiting list may be pushed up and be appointed in the vacancy so caused or if there is some extreme exigency the Government may as a matter of policy decision pick up persons in order of merit from the waiting list. But the view taken by the High Court that since the vacancies have not been worked out properly, therefore, the candidates from the waiting list were liable to be appointed does not appear to be sound. This practice, may result in depriving those candidates who become eligible for competing for the vacancies available in future. If the waiting list in one examination was to operate as an infinite stock for appointments, there is a danger that the State Government may resort to the device of not holding an examination for years together and pick up candidates from the waiting list as and when required. The constitutional discipline requires that this Court should not permit such improper exercise of power which may result in creating a vested interest and perpetrate waiting list for the candidates of one examination at the cost of entire set of fresh candidates either from the open or even from service." 8. Further, in Rakhi Ray (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: “8. In Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab this Court held as under: (SCC p. 494, paras 14 & 16) "14. …. 9. A waiting list prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment. It is operative only for the contingency that if any of the selected candidates does not join then the person from the waiting list may be pushed up and, be appointed in the vacancy so caused or if there is some extreme exigency the Government may as a matter of policy decision pick up persons in order of merit from the waiting list. But the view taken by the High Court that since the vacancies have not been worked out properly, therefore, the 3 candidates from the waiting list were liable to be appointed does not appear to be sound. This practice, may result in depriving those candidates who become eligible for competing for the vacancies available in future. If the waiting list in one examination was to operate as an infinite stock for appointments, there is a danger that the State Government may resort to the device of not holding an examination for years together and pick up candidates from the waiting list as and when required. The constitutional discipline requires that this Court should not permit such improper exercise of power which may result in creating a vested interest and perpetrate waiting list for the candidates of one examination at the cost of entire set of fresh candidates either from the open or even from service.” 9. Bearing in mind the aforesaid propositions as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is settled position that mere placement in the wait list does not create any vested right for being so appointed. The wait list operates for a limited period and in the event of contingency that if any of the selected candidates does not join then the person from the waiting list may be pushed up and be appointed in the vacancy so caused. It cannot extend for indefinite period. Thus, the petitioner has no right vested on him to claim for appointment upon death of a person who has already joined in the said post. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition being WPA 3633 of 2026 stands dismissed. 11. Since no affidavits have been called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to be not admitted. 12. Consequently, connected applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 13. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. 14. There will be no order as to costs. 4 15. Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.) 5