Soumitra Maity v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

18th Feb., 2026 In the High Court at Calcutta Item no.D/L 73 Court No. 18 Pradip, A.R.(Ct.) Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Case No.

WPA 2881 of 2026 In the matter of :

Soumitra Maity .... Petitioner VS.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

....Respondents For the Petitioner:

Mr. Kalyan Kumar Panda Mr. Jagadish Chandra Halder ....Advocates For the WBCSSC:

Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya Ms. Pramiti Bandopadhyay Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh ....Advocates For the State:

Mr. K.J. Yusuf Mr. Tarak Karan Mr. Sourav Chaudhuri ....Advocates

1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.

2. The petitioner claims to be teaching in a self-financed private school. He participated in 2nd SLST, 2025.

3. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that he was unable to submit the details of his past teaching experience because the window of the portal did not allow him to do so. There was no category for filling up the experience column in respect of private school teachers.

4. Prayer has been made to direct the Commission to award marks to the petitioner on account of his prior teaching experience.

5. The prayer of the petitioner is opposed by the learned advocate representing the Commission.

6. It has been submitted that presently the merit list has been published and the petitioner did not disclose his experience at the time of filling up the application form. At this stage, direction ought not to be issued upon the Commission for awarding any marks to the candidate on account of his past teaching experience.

7. I have heard and considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties.

8. It appears that the last date for submission of the application form expired on July 21, 2025. The cause of action for filing the writ petition is the inability of the petitioner to fill in the column meant for prior teaching experience. As the petitioner was aggrieved at the very initial point of time, that is, at the time of filing the application form, he ought to have approached the Court at that point of time.

9. The petitioner has approached the Court long after publication of the merit list by the Commission.

10. The Court is not agreeable to accept the prayer of the petitioner to pass any direction upon the Commission at this belated stage.

11. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the instant writ petition. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Amrita Sinha, J.)