Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 690 (CAL)

SHOVA CHATTERJEE v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/1343/2026 · 2026-03-11

Reetobroto Kumar Mitra

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

11/03 2026 AD-08/24 266312 NANDY (DISPOSED OF) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA 1343 of 2026 Shova Chatterjee Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Devranjan Das, Advocate …...for the Petitioner Mr. Swapan Kumar Dutta, Ld. G.P. Mr. Biplab Guha, Advocate Mr. Sandip Kumar Maiti, Advocate ……for the State Mr. Subhrangsu Panda, Advocate Ms. Ina Bhattacharya, Advocate Ms. Mithu Singha Mahapatra, Advocate ……for the WBCSC 1. Affidavit of service, as filed, be kept with the record. 2. The petitioner is a State Aided College Teacher (SACT) of category II at the Vidyasagar Mahavidyalaya under the University of Calcutta. She seeks up-gradation to the category of SACT-I. 3. However, it appears that the petitioner holds a master’s degree in ‘Environmental Studies’. There is no such subject in which the National Eligibility Test (NET) or State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) examination is conducted. 4. According to the respondents, the petitioner is disentitled to be upgraded to SACT-I category, as she is not NET or SLET qualified. 5. The petitioner had made a representation to the respondent no. 4 on 05.09.2024, which has not been considered or disposed of. 6. In the circumstances, I direct the respondent no. 4 to dispose of the representation dated 05.09.2024 in accordance with law by 30.04.2026 upon granting the petitioner a hearing with adequate prior notice. P a g e | 2 7. With the afore-stated direction, WPA 1343 of 2026 is disposed of. No order as to costs. 8. It is made clear that I have not gone into the merits of the representation and all points raised by the petitioner, shall be considered by the respondent no. 4 in accordance with law. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)