ANURUPA CHATTERJEE v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
WPA/18749/2024 · 2026-02-10
Amrita Sinha
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 475 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 475 (CAL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
10-02-2026 Item No.6 Subrata Bhattacharyya AR(C) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA No.18749 of 2024 Anurupa Chatterjee -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Subhabrata Chowdhury …for the petitioner Mr. Somnath Mukhopadhyay …for the State Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra Ms. Supriya Dubey …for the Commission
1. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process of headmistress. She is aggrieved as her name appeared in the list of waitlisted candidates and she was never called for counselling.
2. According to the petitioner, there are several vacancies, but the Commission is not taking any steps to fill the same.
3.
Learned counsel for the West Bengal Central School Service Commission submits, upon instruction that, the petitioner’s name appeared in the list of waitlisted candidates. The panel in question expired in January 2020.
4. A letter seeking certain information was forwarded by the petitioner in June 2020, that is, long after the expiry of the panel.
5. It has been submitted that the instant writ petition has been filed in the year 2024. Any vacancy that may have cropped up after expiry of the panel will be carried forward and filled up in accordance with law in the subsequent
recruitment process that will be held.
6. Upon hearing the respective submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it appears that the petitioner is an unsuccessful candidate in the recruitment process which was conducted by the Commission in the year 2017. The panel was published in 2019 and the same expired in June
2020. At such belated point of time there is hardly any scope to interfere in the matter.
7. Had the petitioner been genuinely aggrieved by any action on the part of the Commission in not disclosing the OMR sheet, then the petitioner ought to have rushed to the Court immediately at the time of preparation of the panel and certainly within the validity period of the same. More than four years after expiry of the panel, the instant writ petition has been filed.
8. The writ petition thus fails and is hereby dismissed.
9. All parties are to act on the server copy of this
order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
10. Certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be made available to the parties. [Amrita Sinha, J]
2
3