23 16.09. 2026 Ct. No. 18 Ab IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 22886 of 2026 Uttam Kumar Samanta Vs. Calcutta Port Trust and others. --------------- Mr. Debabrata Mandal. … for the petitioner. Mr. Kalyan Kumar Chakraborty, Mr. Ravi Ranjan Kumar. … for the UOI. 1. The affidavit of service filed today is taken on record.] 2. The petitioner is aggrieved that his representation on compassionate appointment to the category of Unskilled Worker in the Port Trust has not been considered in line with the representation made by him on February 11, 2025. 3. The land of the petitioner’s grandfather has been taken by the Calcutta Port Trust and in lieu of the Land Looser Certificate, the petitioner had been considered for appointment. However, even after the petitioner was selected for appointment in the land looser category, on the basis of the complaint received, the authority cancelled the appointment of the petitioner, on ground that the petitioner had furnished false information to get the employment in the land looser category in making the application for 2 appointment. 4. The petitioner had challenged such cancellation sometime in 1999 by way of a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated July 1, 2002 holding, inter alia, that “such complaint has been proved and has not been denied by the petitioner in his petition. Hence, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed”. In addition to cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment, the appointment of the private respondents in that writ petition had also been cancelled. 5. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition presently seeking a right on the basis of his representation of December 3, 2025 alleging, inter alia, that since the private respondents have been reemployed by the Port Trust Authorities, the petitioner is also entitled for reconsideration for employment. 6. The situation of the private respondents and the petitioner are somewhat different. The private respondents had not approached the Court nor had they admitted to their guilt as alleged. The petitioner, on the other hand, had admitted to his guilt and it had been held that the complaint made against the petitioner had been proved. It was on this ground, the writ petition of the petitioner had been dismissed. 3 7. The petitioner had been in service elsewhere for the entire tenure from sometime in 2000 till present times. 8. The petitioner claims to be jobless. However, there is no vested right of the petitioner to claim employment under the land looser scheme employed by the Port Trust. In any event, the petitioner having furnished false information to get the appointment, as found by the Hon’ble Court while disposing of the earlier writ petition, cannot claim any right as of today. There is also no explanation as to why the petitioner slept over his rights from 2002 till 2026. 9. In view thereof, WPA 22886 of 2026 is dismissed. 10. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 11. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.) 4