18.08.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Item No.35 CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI Court No.11. S. De 1634 MAT 77 of 2026 with I.A. No. CAN/1/2026 I.A. No. CAN/2/2026 I Susmita Chakraborty. Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Shamim Ul Bari, Ms. Taniya Bhowmik, …for the appellant. Mr. Kunaljit Bhattacharjee, Ld. AGP, Ms. Radhika Agarwal, …for the State. Order dictated by Arijit Banerjee, J. In re : CAN 1 of 2026 (Sec. 5) 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 50 days in presenting the appeal. Causes shown being sufficient, the delay is condoned. 2. CAN 1 of 2026 is disposed of. In re : MAT 77 of 2026 & CAN 2 of 2026 (Stay) 3. By consent of both the parties, the appeal and the connected applications are taken up together for hearing. 4. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated April 20, 2026, whereby a learned Judge of this Court disposed of the appellant/writ petitioner’s writ petition being WPA 595 of 2026. 5. The appellant/writ petitioner was appointed as a school teacher pursuant to she being successful in the examination held in 2010. She joined service. 2 6. In 2016, the appellant/writ petitiner again took the relevant examination so that she could get a better offer in so far as place of employment is concerned. She again was successful in the 2016 examination. 7. In 2022, she was transferred to another school near her residence. 8. In 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court cancelled the entire recruitment process but protected the service of some of the teachers including the appellant/writ petitioner who were perceived not to be tainted. 9. Subsequently, the appellant/writ petitioner was posted in a school which, we are told, is about more than six hundred kilometers away from her residence. She is a resident of Madhyamgram, North 24-Parganas. She has been posted in school at Banarhat, Jalpaiguri. She made a representation requesting for her posting in a school near her residence. Alleging non- consideration of such representation, the appellant/writ petitioner approached the learned Single Judge. 10. The learned Judge noted the submission made on behalf of the State that the State has no objection if the appellant/writ petitioner’s representation is considered by the respondent no.3 in the writ petition being the District Inspector of Schools (SE), Jalpaiguri. 11. Accordingly, the learned Judge disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent no.3 to 3 consider and dispose of the appellant/writ petitioner’s representation within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the order. The learned Judge clarified that there had been no adjudication on the merits of the case by the Court. 12. The appellant/writ petitioner now tells us that the respondent no.3 in the writ petition is not the competent authority to consider the appellant/writ petitioner’s representation. 13. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned AGP, tells us that according to his instruction, the Chairman, West Bengal Central School Service Commission being the respondent no.5 herein, is the competent authority. However, Mr. Bari, learned advocate for the appellant/writ petitioner is absolutely certain that the competent authority is the respondent no.2 being the Commissioner of School Education. 14. To our mind the State can have no objection if the representation is considered by the Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal being the respondent no.2. 15. Accordingly, we direct the Commissioner of School Education, West Bengal, being the respondent no.2 herein to consider the appellant/writ petitioner’s representation dated March 11, 2026, and dispose of the same by a reasoned order, in accordance with applicable rules and regulations, within a period of 4 four weeks from the date of communication of this order by the appellant/writ petitioner to the respondent no.2, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant/writ petitioner or her authorized representative. 16. The order passed by the respondent no.2 will be communicated to the appellant/writ petitioner within a week from the date of the order. 17. We clarify that we have not addressed the merits of the appellant/writ petitioner’s claim. The respondent no.2 shall take an independent decision, in accordance with law. 18. MAT 77 of 2026 is disposed of along with the application being CAN 2 of 2026. (Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)