Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rajendra Prasad Dolai vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 14 November, 2025
14-11-2025
ct no. 10
Sl.1
RP
WPA 24030 of 2007
With
Old No.CAN 9062/2013, CAN 2/2014(old
No. CAN 567 of 2014)
Rajendra Prasad Dolai
-Versus-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr.Tarun Kr. Das,
Mr.Pratap Kr. Yadav
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Santanu Kr. Mitra,Govt.Adv.,
Mr. Amartya Pal
...for the State
1. The parties are represented through their
respective Counsels.
2. The petitioner submits that by an order
dated 29.11.2007 this Co-ordinate Bench
of this Hon'ble Court observes as follows:
"The concerned responder authorities to permit
the writ petitioner to appear at the interview for
filling up of the post of Clerk of Agricultural High
School, P.O. Deulpota, District- Purba Medinipur
which is scheduled to be held on 07.12.2007 or
on any rescheduled date, provided of course, he
is otherwise eligible. However, this will create
no equity in favour of the writ petitioner in
getting the employment, and the same shall
abide by the result of the instant writ
application."
3. Thereafter, in pursuance of the said order
dated 29.1.2007 the authority concerned had
issued a letter of appointment dated
28.12.2007 in the post of clerk requesting
2
thereby to join the post within 7 days from
the receipt of the letter dated 28.12.2007 the
relevant letter is reproduced below:
"As per panel approved by the District Inspector
of Schools,Purba Medinipur (His Memo No. 1580-
s date 20.12.07) against the permanent vacancy
of a clerk (reserved for Scheduled Caste) in the
above named school the undersigned is to inform
you that you are hereby appointed in the post on
usual terms and co0nditions and pay scale as
admissible as per Government rules.
You will be on probation for two years in your
service and your appointment is subject to the
approval of the District Inspector of Schools,
Purba Medinipur.
You are to continue to serve this institution
subject to the terms and conditions laid down in
the School Code application to aided school. ]
You are requested to join the post within 7 days
from the receipt of this letter."
4. Subsequently, on 31.12.2007 District
Inspector of School, Purba Medinipur being
the respondent no. 3 herein issued an
approval of appointment to the petitioner with a rider which is reproduced below :-
"The approval of appointment of Rajendra Prasad Dolai M.P. clerk is hereby approved abide by the result of the W.P.No.- 24030(w) of 2007."
5. The petitioner submits that since the rider speaks of the approval subject to the result of the writ petition No. WPA 24030 of 2007, the petitioner filed a CAN application being CAN 1/2013 (Old No.CAN 9062 of 2013 praying, inter alia, for disposal of the writ petition by directing the respondent no. 3 to delete the conditions imposed in the approval of the appointment vide memo no. 31.12.2007. 3 Thereafter, CAN 1/2013 was dismissed for default on 07.10.2013.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner submits and prays to allowed the CAN applications since the issue involved herein has already been declared ulta vires by Hon'ble Justice Soumitra Pal in the in case of Prabir Kumar Maji vs. State of West Bengal & Ors (W.P.No. 927of 2008) with Arun Kumar Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal &Ors.(W.P.No. 1784 of 2008) with Mangalmoy Bandyopadhyay vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (W.P. No. 3377 of 2008) reported in 2008 (2) CHN.
7. The State respondents submit that already the prayer made in the writ petition has become infructuous since the rule has been repealed and new Act has come into force.
8. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties, and upon considering the materials available on record I am of the considered view, that the rider appended to the memo dated 31.12.2007 that the approval of the appointment of the petitioner will abide by the result of that writ petition. From the restoration application being CAN 2/2014, I find that the reasons assigned in the paragraph nos. 3 and 4 are sufficiently explained for restoring the said CAN 1/2013 to its main file.
4
9. In view of the above, CAN 2 of 2014 is allowed and CAN 1 of 2013 is restored to the main file.
10. The prayer made in the writ petition has become infractuous and lost its force. Therefore, there remains no question of further consideration of the merit of the case since rule under challenge had been repealed and New Act has come into force.
11. The instant writ petition along with the connected applications are disposed of directing inter alia, the authority concerned being the respondent No. 3 hereinto revisit the issue of the approval of the appointment of the petitioner dated 31.07.2007 in the light of the judgment as the judgment delivered by Justice Soumitra Pal as His Lordship then was, in the case of Prabir Kumar Maji and the State of West Bengal and Ors. specially considering with regard to the rider mentioned in the memo dated 31.07.2007. The respondent no. 3 shall consider the case of the writ petitioner as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of order and communicate the said decision to the concerned parties within a week thereafter.
(Smita Das De, J.)