07.08.2026 rpan/02 RVW 302 of 2025 + IA No.: CAN 1 of 2025 [Sec. 5] + IA No.: CAN 2 of 2026 [App.Order] Pintu Nandi - Versus - The State of West Bengal & Others [arising out of FMA 602 of 2025 + CAN 1 of 2024] Mr. Biswarup Nandy … for the Applicant. Ms. Manju Agarwal, Ms. Sneha Chatterjee … for the State/Respondents. Mr. Suchindran Bhattacharjee … for the Respondent no.7. Aggrieved by the order dated 19th May, 2025 passed in FMA 602 of 2025, the writ petitioner/appellant herein has preferred the present review petition, being RVW 302 of 2025 along with an application for appropriate order, being IA No.: CAN 2 of 2026. As the review application has been filed belatedly, the applicant has also affirmed an application for condonation of delay, being IA No.: CAN 1 of 2025. Mr. Nandy, learned advocate appearing for the review applicant/appellant submits that the applicant comes from a very poor family and he was constrained to prefer the appeal and the connected application in person. However, after a long legal battle, the appeal was dismissed. Being a layman, he was not aware about the legal formalities and as such there occasioned a delay in filing the review petition. Thus, the delay which had occasioned is neither deliberate nor intentional. Ms. Agarwal, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State/respondents, however, has left the issue of condonation of delay to the discretion of this Court. Upon hearing the learned advocates and considering the averments made in the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied with the explanation given towards the delay and as have invited Mr. Nandy, learned advocate appearing for the appellant to advance his argument on merits of the matter, we condone the delay. The application for condonation of delay, being IA NO.: CAN 1 of 2025 is disposed of. Mr. Nandy strenuously argues that in spite of due diligence various documents could not have been brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Court at the time of hearing of the appeal. Those documents have now been annexed to the application for appropriate order from which it would be explicit that appointments were given in the Halisahar Ramprasad Vidyapith (in short, the said school) even after coming into operation of the West Bengal 2 School Service Commission (Selection of Persons of Appointment to the Post of Non-Teaching Staffs) Rules, 2009 (in short, 2009 Rules). Had such fact been brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Court, the order would have been otherwise inasmuch as the Hon’ble Court proceeded on the basis that after commencement of the 2009 Rules, no appointment could have been granted by the respondents following the procedure prevalent prior to the promulgation of the said 2009 Rules. Drawing our attention to the order impugned, Mr. Nandy submits that the Hon’ble Court had proceeded on the basis that no steps have been taken by the school authorities to seek approval of the panel which was prepared pertaining to the selection process in which the applicant appeared. The documents annexed to the application for appropriate order would reveal that the panel was duly prepared and approved by the managing committee of the said school and was also forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools, who in turn maintained a deceptive silence in spite of issuance of several representations. Such argument, as advanced, was glossed over by the Hon’ble appeal Court. According to Mr. Nandy, the applicant’s life has been spoiled by one Chandan Roy Goswami, who, 3 in fact, stalled the approval and grant of appointment to the applicant, who upon emerging to be successful in the selection process secured the first position in the panel. On the basis of a false allegation, he was at that juncture entangled in a criminal proceeding from which he has been ultimately acquitted in the year 2024 though an appeal being Criminal appeal no.15 of 2024 preferred against the same is pending before the Court of the learned Additional District Judge – I, Barrackpore. Ms. Agarwal, however, denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Nandy and submits that it is not a case that even after exercise of due diligence appropriate documents could not be brought to the notice of the Hon’ble appeal Court at the time of hearing. She further argues that there is no patent error apparent on the face of the record and the parameters prescribed for review do not postulate a rehearing of the dispute because a party has not highlighted all the aspects of the case or could perhaps argue them more forcibly before the Court. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. 4 The argument of Mr. Nandy that in spite of due diligence he could not bring appropriate documents on record to reveal that appointments were given in the said school even after promulgation of the 2009 Rules and following the procedure prevalent prior thereto, is not acceptable to this Court. The selection process was of the year 2008. However, in the said writ petition filed in the year 2024 it was not stated that appointments have been given in the said school following the Rules prevalent prior to the commencement of the 2009 Rules. The writ petition was pending for more than a decade but still such fact was not urged by the applicant. The other argument of Mr. Nandy that the Hon’ble Court committed an error apparent on the face of the record by observing that there was no material to suggest that the managing committee of the said school took steps to get the panel approved, is also not acceptable to this Court inasmuch as the issue was whether the panel was prepared or approved by the competent authority. Indisputably, the panel was not approved. In the said conspectus and as the matters which ought to have been urged in course of appeal have been sought to be agitated afresh, we are not inclined to interfere in the review application. 5 Review proceedings are not by way of appeal. The arguments advanced by Mr. Nandy and the grounds taken in the review application do not in any manner establish any error whatsoever on the face of the record nor the application for review had been preferred upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence. Accordingly, the review petition and the connected application being IA No.: CAN 2 of 2026 are dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Smita Das De, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.) 6