Tarulata Roy Sinha v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

03.04.2025 Item No. 07 Crt.No.02 b.r. WPA 4803 of 2025 Tarulata Roy Sinha -vsThe Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Suvro Prokash Lahiri Md. Habibur Rahman Mr. Ankan Mondal .... For the petitioner.

Mr. Rezaul Hossain ... for the State.

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

Mr. Suvro Prakash Lahiri, learned Counsel appears for the petitioner.

Mr. Rezaul Alam, learned State counsel appears for the respondents.

The petitioner in effect claims job as ASHA Karmi at the relevant block. An engagement letter dated September 19, 2023, annexure p-3 at page-20 to the writ petition was issued in favour of the petitioner, when the petitioner was asked to produce the relevant documents for taking further steps in the selection process. The petitioner could not attend on the date fixed, since her mother met a road accident and ultimately passed away during

that period. Petitioner submitted representations on October 2, 2023 and October 3, 2023, annexures p-5 and p-7 at pages-23 and 25 to the writ petition respectively. The writ petition has been filed in February 20, 2025.

Learned State counsel submits that one Smt.

Mamata Singha has already been selected for the same post in accordance with law and in strict compliance of the merit list.

Mr. Lahiri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has denied and disputed the submissions made on behalf of the State.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, it appears to this Court that, at the outset, the writ petition is grossly belated one as would be evident from the inescapable facts narrated above. Inasmuch as, though denied by the petitioner, another person has already been selected for the same post as submitted by the State for the SubCentre Konivita, Islampur Block, District-Uttar Dinajpur.

No equity can be exercised in the facts of this case as the writ petition is grossly belated. Inasmuch as merely by receiving the said

engagement letter and by not following up subseqent steps mentioned thereunder, no right has been created in favour of the petitioner. In view of the foregoing discussions and reasons, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition is devoid of any merit.

Accordingly, this writ petition, WPA 4803 of 2025 stands dismissed, without any order as to costs.

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously.

(Aniruddha Roy, J.)