24.09.2026 Court No.13 Item Nos.2 & 3 AP MAT 1507 of 2023 Arpita Pramanik Vs. Pulak Tung and Ors. With MAT 646 of 2023 The State of West Bengal and Anr. Vs. Pulak Tung and Ors. Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharyya Mr. Kartick Chandra Kapas Ms. Tapasi Das …for the appellant in MAT 1507 of 2023 and the added respondent in MAT 646 of 2023. Mr. Subir Sanyal, Senior Advocate Mr. Tarun Kumar Das Mr. Sk. Imtiaj Uddin ..for the Writ Petitioners/Respondents. Mr. Sahasrangshu Bhattacharyya, AGP Ms. Mary Datta ..for the State in MAT 1507 of 2023 and MAT 646 of 2023. 1. The subject appeal filed by the State being MAT 646 of 2023 (The State of West Bengal and Anr. Vs. Pulak Tung and Ors.) challenges judgment and order dated 3rd February, 2023 passed by a Single Bench of this Court in WPA 7202 of 2020 (Pulak Tung & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). 2. MAT 1507 of 2023 (Arpita Pramanik Vs. Pulak Tung and Ors.) also challenges the impugned order dated 3rd February, 2023 and has been filed by a second empanelled candidate in the post of Assistant Teacher in the unreserved category for Hearing Impaired. The said 2 appellant does not have any grievance with regard to the other recruited candidates. 3. The State, however, is aggrieved by the entire recruitment process undertaken by the Ananda Bhawan Deaf & Blind School at Brindabanpur, Howrah. The post advertised were - two posts of Assistant Teacher one reserved and one unreserved, a Librarian, a Clerk-cum- Cashier, a night guard and a Peon. 4. The school published an advertisement notice purportedly with the consent of the respondent No.6, the Director of Mass Education Extension, West Bengal. The advertisement was issued on 10th February, 2019. 5. The respondent No.6 in the writ petition (WPA 7202 of 2020) was the Teacher-in-Charge, in the school (Ananda Bhawan Deaf & Blind School at Brindabanpur, Howrah) in question. 6. The allegation against the recruitment process and the infirmity found by the State authority was, inter alia, that a general category candidate was recruited in the place of a reserved category post. The roster for the recruitment process was not approved by the respondent No.2. The Selection Committee was not constituted in accordance with the rules. The person selected as Assistant Teacher for teaching blind and hearing impaired students was a person qualified for teaching mentally challenged students. He did not possess the requisite qualification for teaching visual and hearing impaired students. 3 7. There are several infirmities of nepotism indicated by the respondent No.6 in the affidavit filed before the Single Bench. 8. It must be noted here, however, that despite infirmities found and indicated by the respondent No.2 in the affidavit-in-opposition filed before the Single Bench, the deponent of the said affidavit namely the District Inspector of Mass Education Extension, Howrah (Respondent No.3) had sought approval of the panel of selected candidates for the said post advertised, from the Director of Mass Education (Respondent No.2). The said Director vide a communication dated 7th January, 2020 had stated that the selection process riddled by illegalities and directed the entire recruitment process to be conducted afresh. 9. After the writ petition was admitted affidavits were called for. The respondent No.2 was the Director of Mass Education Extension. On his behalf the District Mass Education and Extension Officer, Howrah one Mr. Nikhil Kumar Mondal affirmed an affidavit-in-opposition indicating several infirmities as stated hereinabove in the said selection process. 10. It was, inter alia, also averred on affidavit by the respondent No.2, Director of Mass Education Extension that the President of the Managing Committee of the school, who was supposed to be the Chairman of the Selection Committee was not found in the Selection Committee. There was no independent expert in the committee as mandated by the Government vide G.O. 4 No.337-MEE/Sectt dated 24th April, 2017. The nominee of the District Magistrate, Howrah was co-opted as the expert, which was ex facie illegal. 11. In addition thereto, the advertisement for the post of Librarian indicated a wrong pay scale. The qualification for the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier was also not in terms of the relevant Government rules. The respondent No.6 filed affidavit-in-opposition, inter alia, also alleged impropriety in the reserve roster followed by the Selection Committee. 12. The persons selected were all relatives of either existing or past employees of the school. A person, who supplied garments, shoes and school bags to the school was selected as the Librarian. He was the cousin of the then District Mass Education Officer, Howrah. 13. The Single Bench was of the view that the first order of rejection by the respondent No.2 set out in the impugned judgement was without reasons. 14. Mr. Subir Sanyal, leaned Senior Advocate for the respondents/writ petitions would argue by reference to the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs The Chief Election Commissioner New Delhi & Ors. reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 that a decision without disclosing any reasons does not have the force of law. 15. It is true that a standalone decision without reasons by itself may vitiate the same. However, if reasons for the decisions are available in the surrounding facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, a Court of law 5 cannot fault the decision merely on the ground of absence of reasons. 16. The proposition of law in Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) has been clarified and watered down in a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. (formerly known as Financial Technologies India Ltd.) & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2019) 18 SCC 401 particularly paragraph 102 and in the case of Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India v. Tanya Energy Enterprises reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1979. 17. This Court notices that the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.2, District Mass Education and Extension Officer, indicates sufficient illegalities in the recruitment process and constitution of the Selection Committee if not from the advertisement itself. 18. This Court is surprised to note that the recruitment process was initiated pursuant to order dated 13th January, 2022 passed by a Single Bench of this Court in the same writ petition (WPA 7202 of 2020). The recruitment was in any event required to abide by the result of the writ petition before the Single Bench. 19. The affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.6, Teacher-in-Charge, Ananda Bhawan Deaf & Blind School at Brindabanpur, Howrah was ignored by the Single Bench on the ground that she was not authorized by the Managing Committee of the school to file the same. 6 20. This Court is of the view that the finding of the Single Bench in this regard is ex facie erroneous. Admittedly, the Teacher-in-Charge was impleaded as respondent No.6 in addition to the school itself. A Teacher-in-Charge, who is an independent party to the writ petition, need not have sought any prior approval of the Managing Committee to file affidavit-in-opposition before the Single Bench. The Managing Committee is required only to approve the affidavit-in-opposition of the school. 21. The refusal on the part of the Single Bench to take the affidavit-in-opposition of the Teacher-in-Charge of the school on record is by itself a gross impropriety. A party to a proceeding, who could have thrown light on a recruitment process was not even allowed to file an affidavit. 22. Learned counsel representing the respondent No.6 was, however, heard by the Single Bench. His oral submissions were duly recorded. The same were not given any credence by the Single Judge once again erroneously. 23. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, this Court’s mind is not free from doubt that the selection process undertaken in the manner as indicated above and in violation of the applicable rules was favouring the selection of some particular candidates. The Single Judge failed to notice the same and, therefore, fell in error in allowing the writ petition. 24. In the light of the discussions hereinabove, this Court holds that the recruitment process undertaken by 7 the said Ananda Bhawan Deaf & Blind School at Brindabanpur, Howrah vide notice dated 10th February, 2019 is illegal and contrary to law and is liable to be quashed and set aside and is hereby so set aside. 25. The impugned judgement dated 3rd February, 2023 shall also stand set aside. The writ petition being WPA 7202 of 2020 shall stand dismissed. 26. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs that no recovery shall be made of the salaries and emoluments already paid to the selected candidates, their recruitment would come to end forthwith. They may, however, be continued at the discretion of the Director, Mass Education Extension, until such time, a new recruitment process is undertaken and the posts are filled up strictly in terms of the applicable rules for recruitment of the posts in question. A fresh procedure of recruitment shall be undertaken and completed by the Managing Committee of the school with prior approval of the respondent Nos.2 and 3. The entire recruitment procedure shall be subject to the final approval of the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 27. It is expected that the fresh recruitment is initiated and conducted by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of communication of a copy of this order. 28. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners/respondents has prayed before this Court that his clients should be allowed to participate in the fresh recruitment process 8 directed to be initiated in terms of this order and relaxation of age must be given to them. 29. Since the counsel for the State has not objected to the prayer of learned counsel for the writ petitioners/ respondents to allow them to participate in the fresh recruitment process with an appropriate age relaxation, the writ petitioners/respondents as well as Arpita Pramanik would be entitled to participate in the recruitment process subject to their fulfilling all other criteria for the recruitment with relaxation only in respect of their age. 30. MAT 646 of 2023 is allowed and disposed of. Consequently, MAT 1507 of 2023 is also disposed of. 31. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. 32. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) (Anuj Singh, J.)