Manik Manna v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

20.04.2026 Item No. 23 Ct. No. 14 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA AN CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 20643 of 2024 Manik Manna vs.

State of West Bengal & ors.

Mr. Satadal Sovan Halder ... for the petitioner Mr. Ratul Biswas Mr. Kaushik Chowdhury ... for the WBBPE Mr. Jayanta Samanta Mrs. Indumouli Banerjee ... for the State Mr. Ranjan Saha ... for DPSC, Paschim Medinipur 1.

Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

2.

On the prayer of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, leave is granted to add the Secretary, West Bengal Board of Primary Education as added respondent no. 5.

3.

By the present writ petition the petitioner seeks as follows (a) direction upon the respondent nos. 1 to 4 to give proper information as per Right to Information Act (in short, RTI Act 2005), and (b) direction upon respondent no.1 for issuance of appointment letter in favour of the petitioner. 4.

The petitioner contends that he passed the primary Teachers Eligibility Test (in short, TET) in the year 2012 but the petitioner was not given appointment

letter. The petitioner on several times requested the respondent authorities to give information as to the status of his appointment. Since no information was provided, the petitioner also made applications under the RTI Act on 19th October, 2020 for getting information but no such detailed information was provided to him. Being aggrieved by such action on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.

5.

Mr. Satadal Sovan Halder, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner ought to have been given appointment since he was successful in TET, 2012. Despite several persuasions the petitioner was not provided with the appropriate information regarding the status of appointment. He seeks for appropriate orders.

6.

Mr. Ratul Biswas, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Board submits that in the year 2013, the TET qualified candidates, excepting one or two, all have been given appointments. The petitioner has failed to annexe any document of his TET qualification. There is considerable delay in filing of the writ petition. He seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.

7.

So far as prayer (a) of the writ petition is concerned, the grievance is of non furnishing of required information by respondent authorities concerned under RTI Act. Since there is appeal provision under Section 19 of the RTI Act for preferring an appeal

before the appropriate authority the prayer is not maintainable before a writ court hence with regard to prayer (b) for issuance of appointment letter, it is found that the petitioner though has stated that he has successfully qualified in TET, 2012, however, there are no such documents in support of such claims. There is also considerable delay in filing the writ petition which has not been explained by the petitioner.

8.

In view of the above, the writ petition falls short of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

9.

Accordingly, the writ petition being WPA 20643 of 2024 stands dismissed.

10. Since no affidavits have been called for, the allegation made in the writ petition is deemed to be not admitted.

11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

12. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of.

13. There shall be no order as to costs.

14. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

15. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of all necessary legal formalities.

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)