Ramkrishna Deogharia v. State Of West Bengal & ORS.

27.03.2025 Item No.22 PG/KS Ct. No.1 W.P.A. 18086 of 2018 Ramkrishna Deogharia

Versus

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Rudranil De Mr. Soumo Charan...................for the petitioner Mr. Sanjay Kr. Baid............for the respondent/ Institution

1. This public interest writ petition has been filed by a retired teacher in the year 2018, wherein the main relief sought for is with regard to certain appointments made by the respondent/institution, which is a minority institution.

2. The petitioner seeks a direction for issuance of mandamus to cancel the appointments, which have been made by the respondent/institution and to restrain the authorities to give approval of the appointments in connection with the interview held on and from July 4, 2018 to August 14, 2018.

3. The petitioner also seeks for a direction to refer the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation and as could be seen from the various averments made in the writ petition, the challenge is to the process adopted by the respondent/institution for filling up certain posts and the appointments, which have been given.

4. It may be true that in the year 2018, when the writ petition was filed, interview was being held. Therefore, the

petitioner was well aware of those candidates, who were called for interview. Thereafter, the candidates have been given appointments and their appointments have been approved subject to the outcome of this writ petition.

5. In any event, at this distance of time, the question of setting aside the appointments, which were made in the year 2018 would not arise, more particularly, in a public interest litigation, which has to be held not maintainable in a service dispute.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent/institution submitted that the reason for filing this writ petition is on account of the fact that the writ petitioner's son was not given appointment.

This allegation is vehemently denied by the learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner.

7. As pointed out earlier, the matter is purely a service dispute, which cannot be agitated in a public interest litigation.

8. Therefore, we find no ground to grant the prayers, as sought for. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

9. No costs.

10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities.

(T.S SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE (CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)