Item.22 16.09.2026 ssi Ct. 3 WPA 10166 of 2026 Debdas Banerjee -vs- State of West Bengal & others. Mr. S. P. Pahari …for the petitioner 1. Challenging the order dated 19th March, 2026 passed by the Chairman, Contai Municipality, the instant writ petition has been filed. The matter has a checkered history. The petitioner claims that he was appointed as an employee in the Contai Municipality on 7th June, 1990 on temporary basis and his confirmation was subject to satisfactory completion of two years of service. The petitioner contends that he had continued in service to the satisfaction of the municipality and the Chairman of the municipality had also espoused his case for correction of his qualification and date of birth in the gradation list as would corroborate from letter dated 23rd March, 2009. 2. The aforesaid letter dated 23rd March, 2009 would demonstrate that the services of the petitioner was confirmed as the petitioner continued beyond two years, and accordingly, the employer had sought for WPA 10166 of 2026 2 correction in the gradation list as well. 3. It is the petitioner’s case that he was arrested in connection with the proceeding under Section 498A/202/201 of the Indian Penal Code and in connection with such proceeding, he remained in custody until he was acquitted, after the prosecution failed to establish the charge against him. After his release when the petitioner attempted to join the service, the Municipality did not permit the petitioner to join and ultimately, the petitioner was compelled to file a writ petition which was registered as WPA 16100 of 2025. This Court considering the case made out and also noting that the petitioner was in custody, was of the view that the municipal authorities must consider the petitioner’s case for being allowed to join the services and accordingly permitted the petitioner to file afresh representation with the municipality. 4. Record would reveal that the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid order had filed a fresh representation. The same was considered and disposed of by a reasoned order dated 19th March, 2026 which form subject matter of challenge in the present petition. Though, by an order dated 19th May, 2026, this Court had refused to pass any interim order, however, by such order this Court WPA 10166 of 2026 3 directed the respondents to produce the record. Today at the time of hearing, the municipal authorities are not represented. No records have also been produced. 5. However, having considered the order impugned this Court finds that a finding has been rendered by the municipal authorities that the petitioner was a casual/temporary employee and his employment was not against a permanent sanction post. It has also been observed that the employer had been compelled to fill up the post which had remained vacant for eleven years. In fact, in the order though, no specific disclosure has been made as regards the date on which the position of the petitioner has been filled up, however, it has stated that the said position has been filed up long ago. The order further records at present there is no shortage of man power in the concerned category. Rather, there is excess man power in certain sections. In the peculiar facts, the municipal authorities had rejected the prayer of the petitioner to join. However, it has clarified that in future if there is any requirement of manpower, the municipal authorities may consider his case on priority basis. 6. Though, the petitioner’s advocate would contend that the finding as regards excess employment of man power in the municipality is incorrect, and WPA 10166 of 2026 4 there are number of vacancies, however, while considering such aspect, this Court has to be conscious of the fact that in a challenge under judicial review, the Court ordinarily cannot interfere with the factual finding rendered. Since in this case a factual finding has been rendered, there is no scope for the Court to interfere especially when nothing has been placed before this Court to show such a finding is perverse. 7. In the light of the above, I am of the view that there is no scope to interfere with the order. 8. It is made clear that this Court is refusing to interfere on the stand taken by the municipality which records “if in future any requirement of manpower arises, the municipality may consider his case on priority basis”, as such no fresh appointment shall be made without first considering the petitioner’s candidature and without insisting for any further eligibility criteria in the form of age bar. 9. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)