Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Tulasi Dey vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 20 March, 2026

20.03.2026
Ct. No. 30
S.L. No. 12-13
    SM
                                WPA 4294 of 2026

                                     Tulasi Dey
                                       Versus
                             State of West Bengal & Ors.




                       Mr. Sayantan Adhya
                                  ........for the petitioner

                       Mr. Alak Kumar Ghosh
                       Mr. Arijit Dey
                                        .......for the KMC
                       Mr. Susanta Pal
                       Ms. Kalpita Paul
                                        .......for the State


                 1.    The    writ   application   has   been    preferred

                 praying for direction upon the respondents to

register the name of the petitioner as an exempted candidate under the EC category cell and direct the respondent no. 6 and 7 to issue admit cards in favour of petitioner and thereby conducting an examination for the post of junior Peon.

2. In course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment and order of this Court dated 22.05.2025 passed in WPA 10988 of 2025, wherein this Court had held:-

"....It is seen that the said documents are identity cards issued to the petitioners herein as enumerators and letters of appointment as enumerators. In spite of 2 producing the said documents, the Director of Employment did not consider the said document as valid documents of experience, though the said documents clearly show that the petitioners have prima facie experience as census enumerators and as they had experience at the relevant time, the point of being under age is not substantiated as the identity cards are of the year 1990....."

3. Finally the Court directed as follows:-

"It is clarified that the petitioners shall not be treated as ineligible on the ground of his age at the time of his initial appointment as census enumerator Uttam Kumar Mondal (supra). Nor lacking in experience as has been observed in this order.

As a consequence of the above directions, the order dated 24.12.2024 issued by the Director of Employment challenged in the writ petition is thus cancelled and set aside."

4. Learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench in The State of West Bengal & Anr. vs Tulasi Dey & Ors. MAT 348 of 2016 dated 11.03.2022, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench relying upon the judgment of 3 the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7327 of 2016 in the matter of State of West Bengal and Another vs. Kalyani Samanta (Mondal) and Others, dated 1st September, 2021, held as follows:-

"Keeping these facts in mind, if we examine the certificate issued to the respondent on 15.04.2000 it is apparent that the document does not refer to any records maintained by the Borough Municipal Corporation- which ordinarily would have been only source for the Chairman to have issued the certificate. The records also reveal that as a matter of fact in the year 2002, the Borough records were not available. Having regard to these important circumstances, this Court is of the view that the High Court fell into error, and uncritically accepted the respondent's argument and directed acceptance of the certificate dated 15.04.2000.
The further argument that the respondent's initial engagement in 1990 cannot be doubted, in this course is of no assistance. Mere issuance of an appointment letter or an identity card cannot per se lead to an assumption that an employee performed all the tasks that he or she 4 was expected to, and for the duration that the census operations were, in fact, undertaken. In the light of the above findings, we are of the opinion that the impugned order and conclusions of the High Court including that of the Single Judge cannot be sustained; they are hereby set aside."

5. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the view taken by the Hon'ble Division Bench by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court, this Court finds that the issue in the present case is similar in nature.

6. Accordingly, this Court relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Tulasi Dey & Ors. (Supra) is of the view that the said judgment shall be applicable on the present case also.

7. The writ application is accordingly dismissed.

8. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.

[Shampa Dutt (Paul). J]