Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Saswati Mondal & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 15 March, 2023
Author: Saugata Bhattacharyya
Bench: Saugata Bhattacharyya
3
CT. No. 15
15.03.2023
adeb
W.P.A. 4262 of 2020
Saswati Mondal & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Samim Ahammed
Ms. Ambiya Khatun
....for the petitioners
Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra
Ms. Supriya Dubey
...for the SSC
Mr. Santanu Kumar Mitra
Mr. Subhabrata Das
...for the State
The writ petition is taken up for consideration in
presence of the learned advocates representing the
petitioners and the West Bengal Central School Service
Commission being the principal respondent.
Mr. Samim Ahammed, learned advocate representing the petitioners has submitted that petitioner no. 1 has obtained employment as a result whereof she is not willing to proceed with the writ petition. However, rest of the two writ petitioners being petitioner nos. 2 & 3 are pressing this writ petition.
The grievance which has been ventilated in the writ petition is need of re-evaluation of answer scripts in connection with petitioners' participation in the written test under 12th Regional Level Selection Test, 2011 ( for short, 'RLST 2011') on the score that answer keys supplied by the Commission was erroneous which led the examiners to wrongly evaluate the answer scripts of the petitioners. 2 Therefore, petitioners pray for appropriate order for re- evaluation of their answer scripts based on appropriate answer key as well as in terms of report of experts.
Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra, learned Counsel representing the Commission has submitted that petitioners have made inordinate delay in approaching the Court with the present writ petition since the selection process was initiated by the notification dated 29th December, 2011 i.e. 12th RLST 2011. On completion of the selection process merit list was prepared which had expired in the month of March, 2015. The writ petition was filed on 28th February, 2020. Therefore, it has been contended on behalf of the Commission that due to expiry of the panel prepared in connection with 12th RLST 2011 no relief can be granted.
After considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties it appears that after participating in the selection process which was initiated pursuant to the notification dated 29th December, 2011 petitioners contemporaneously did not approach this Court seeking relief on the allegation that answer key was erroneous which requires re-evaluation of answer script based on expert's report.
It is true that the merit list was prepared on completion of the selection process which stood expired in the month of March, 2015 whereas the writ petition was filed on 28th February, 2020.
3
It is settled position of law that after expiry of panel the candidate desirous to be appointed based on selection process does not have right to seek remedy by filing writ petition upon invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It has further been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (2007) 9 SCC 274 (Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India & Ors.) that if petition is filed beyond a reasonable period say three years normally the Court would reject the same or restrict the relief which could have been granted within reasonable period of three years.
In view of aforesaid scenario this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same stands dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings.
(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)