27th July, 2026 (D/L No.33) Ct. No.4 (SKB) F.M.A. 473 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Pradip Biswas Versus The State of West Bengal and others Mr. Partha Sarathi Das, Mr. Ambu Bindu Chakraborty, Shah Md. Umer Edne Sadhique, Ms. Purnim pes Ms. Sudipa Das … for the appellant. Mrs. Chandreyi Alam, ld. AGP, Ms. Kakali Dutta … for the State. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant. 2. A recruitment process was conducted pursuant to an advertisement published in the year 2017. Appellant was the writ petitioner in the writ proceeding seeking a relief in the form of a direction upon the respondents to provide various information in relation to the recruitment process, which was for appointment of Audit and Accounts Officers under the West Bengal Audit and Account Service. The petitioner also claimed relief in the form of scrutinizing and evaluation of his answer books afresh. 3. The petitioner/appellant claims to have emerged successful in the preliminary test. Thereafter, he appeared in the subjective/written 2 examination conducted in October, 2017. It is specifically averred by the petitioner/appellant in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that his name was not shown in the list of finally selected candidates. 4. The petitioner/appellant has participated in the entire recruitment process without raising any objection with respect to any questions/answers. 5. For the first time, the petitioner/appellant made an application dated 07.10.2024 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking certain information in relation to the process of recruitment conducted in the year 2017. Thereafter, the writ petition was filed in the year 2026. 6. The writ petition has been rejected by the learned Single Judge relying upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2018)2 SCC 357. The learned Single Judge thus rejected the petitioner’s/applicant’s contention requiring the court to re-appreciate or reassess the recruitment process, with reference to the questions and model answers. 7. We find no reason to interfere with such consideration of the learned Single Judge. 3 8. We also agree with conclusion of the learned Single Judge having regard to the fact that the writ petition was filed nearly 8 years after the recruitment process was conducted and, therefore, was also barred by delay and latches. 9. We, therefore, dismissed the appeal. 10. The application bearing CAN 1 of 2026 is also disposed of accordingly. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)