19/08 2026 AD/30/18 266312 NANDY (DO) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA/21976/2026 SK. SAHINUR ZAMAN & ORS. VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Ms. Reshmi Ghosh, Advocate Ms. Parna Roy Choudhury, Advocate ……for the Petitioners Mr. Sukanta Ghosh, Advocate Ms. Manashi Mukherjee, Advocate ……for the Respondents 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by an Advertisement dated 27.02.2026 calling for further candidates for the post of three Dock Pilots in several categories. 2. On an earlier occasion, a similar Advertisement dated 24.09.2025 had been challenged before this Hon'ble Court by way of a writ-petition, which is pending adjudication after substantial hearing. However, the earlier writ-petition was not filed by the petitioners herein. 3. The petitioners apprehend that their services may be terminated or may be altered if the Advertisement of 27.02.2026 is given effect and interested participating candidates by such Advertisement are inducted into the service. The petitioners are all Dock Pilots with requisite qualification and eligibility. The petitioners have been engaged as such since about 2018–19. 4. The apprehension of the petitioners that recruitment of more Dock Pilots may in some manner alter their situation as serving Dock Pilots, is on the basis of the fact that the P a g e | 2 petitioners have not yet been regularized in their service. The petitioners are guided strictly by the terms of their contract with respondent no. 3. Any breach of the contractual terms will entail violation of the rights of the petitioners. This much is admitted. 5. However, it is also a matter of fact that none of the terms of the contract between the employer and the petitioners have yet been violated. The entire proceeding has been initiated on the basis of an apprehension which may or may not happen. 6. Mr. Sukanta Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents, was unable to commit as to whether the petitioners would be regularized or not. However, he admits that the petitioners are guided by the terms and conditions of their individual contracts with the respondent authorities. 7. In the event, there is any violation of the contractual terms or breach of the rights enshrined on the petitioners, the petitioners will be at liberty to approach this Court to seek enforcement of their rights as well as to seek enforcement of the incumbent duties on the respondent authorities. However, at present, there is no violation of any such right, nor are the petitioners aggrieved that the respondents have committed any act of commission or omission which results in dereliction of their duties. 8. Since all the petitioners have been in service for more than eight years, the authorities will be at liberty to consider regularization of the P a g e | 3 petitioners in their respective posts, upon such application being made by them, in accordance with law. 9. Liberty is given to the petitioners to approach this Court if, at a later stage, pursuant to the Advertisement which has been challenged, any of their contractual rights are violated. 10. With these afore-stated directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 11. Since no affidavits have been called for, the allegations contained in the writ-petition deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)