01.10.2026 Court No.07 Item No.9 AP HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI MAT 74 of 2026 With CAN 2 of 2026 The State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Smt. Rajita Datta and Ors. Mr. Kunaljit Bhattacharjee, AGP Mr. Salok Sah ... For the State. Mr. Kumar Shantanu Ms. Nikita Paul Mr. Parthib Bhowmick ... For the Respondent No.1. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants and reply thereto filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 before this Court are taken on record. 2. The appeal is directed against a judgment and/or order dated 13th April, 2026 passed by a Single Bench of this Court. The writ petitioner/respondent was successfully recruited as an Assistant Teacher in English and issued a letter of appointment to join Ghogomali Girls’ Junior High School district Jalpaiguri on 23rd December, 2013. She joined such service on 2nd January, 2014 but resigned therefrom on 30th April, 2014. 3. Two years later, the writ petitioner/respondent participated in the first State Level Selection Test, 2016 conducted by the West Bengal School Service Commission. She was successful and was issued a letter 2 of appointment to join Central Girls’ High School (H.S.), P.O. & P.S. Kotwali, Jalpaiguri vide order dated 5th February, 2019. She was provisionally appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher (English) for Class IX and X in the general category. The writ petitioner/respondent joined to the aforesaid post on 1st March, 2019. The District Inspector of Schools (SE), Jalpaiguri granted provisional approval for her appointment vide memo dated 14th March, 2019. The entire selection process under the first State Level Selection Test, 2016, under which the writ petitioner/respondent succeeded and obtained letter of appointment and approval, came to be eventually cancelled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4800 of 2025 [State of West Bengal Vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) & Ors.] vide judgment and/or order dated 3rd April, 2025. Paragraph 47 of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is set out hereinbelow:- “47. Some of the appointed candidates who do not fall within the category of tainted candidates may have previously worked in different departments of the State Government or with autonomous bodies, etc. In such cases, although their appointments are cancelled, these candidates will have the right to apply to their previous departments or autonomous bodies to continue in service with those entities. These applications must be processed by the respective government departments or bodies within three months, and the candidates will be allowed to resume their positions. Further, the period between the termination of their previous appointment and their rejoining will not be considered a break in service. Their seniority and other entitlements will be preserved, and they will be eligible for increments. However, for the period they were employed under the disputed appointment, no wages will be paid by the State Government or autonomous bodies. Further, if 3 required and necessary, supernumerary posts may be created for persons appointed in the interregnum” 4. By a mis-interpretated view of the aforesaid paragraph 47, the West Bengal School Service Commission for some strange reason treated the writ petitioner/respondent as an un-tainted candidate and offered her employment at Salbari High School, district Jalpaiguri. 5. This Court is of the view that granting of the writ petitioner/respondent any benefit under paragraph 47 of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the School Service Commission and the Education Department of the State was ex facie erroneous. The protection under paragraph 47 of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court appears to have been given only to those persons, who are continuously working in departments of the State Government or autonomous bodies thereunder, who continued to work such department and surrendered such employment to get the benefit of the recruitment under first State Level Selection Test, 2016. 6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent would submit that the writ petitioner/respondent was, in fact, entitled to benefit of paragraph 47 of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court since several other persons similarly situated as the writ petitioner/respondent have been re- engaged by the School Service Commission. He places 4 reliance on several orders passed by various Single Benches. 7. This Court is of the view that the paragraph 47 of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been mis-interpreted by such Benches and no person, who was similarly situated as the writ petitioner/ respondent, could have got the benefit of such paragraph 47 mentioned hereinabove. 8. The writ petitioner/respondent cannot claim such benefit since she had resigned from her previous employment as an Assistant Teacher in Ghogomali Girls’ Junior High School district Jalpaiguri on 30th April, 2014. 9. What is stark and has escaped the attention of the School Service Commission is that the writ petitioner/respondent had ended her employment with Ghogomali Girls’ Junior High School district Jalpaiguri two full years if not more prior to participation in the first State Level Selection Test, 2016. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) (supra) has created a distinct set of “tainted and untainted”. 11. This set of untainted has two distinct sub sets. 12. First, there are untainted who were employed, prior to participating in the recruitment process of 2016, in various state departments or in autonomous bodies 5 under them, who had given up such job to participate in the recruitment process of 2016. 13. Second, these are untainted who were not employed previously. 14. Paragraph 47 of Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) (supra) applies to the first sub-set of untainted candidates. The Hon'ble Supreme Court consciously kept a window for protecting such candidates, who though untainted would suffer the consequences of a failed process. 15. This was not meant for people in the second subset who though untainted were not employed in Government departments. 16. The petitioner having resigned from her job in 2014 of her own volition and for her personal ground, cannot be construed to be employed in any manner whatsoever on the date of commencement of the recruitment process of 2016. 17. In the light of the above, the question of engaging the writ petitioner/respondent afresh as un-tainted candidate by the School Service Commission by placing reliance on paragraph 47 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was ex facie erroneous. 18. In view of the aforesaid findings, the impugned judgment and order dated 13th April, 2026 shall stand set aside. WPA 517 of 2016 shall stand dismissed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. 6 19. Accordingly, MAT 74 of 2026 is allowed and disposed of. Consequently all connected pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. 20. There shall be no order as to costs. 21. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)