Anushree Sahoo v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

23.03.2026 Item No. 35 Ct. No. 14 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA AN CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 22458 of 2023 Anushree Sahoo vs.

State of West Bengal & ors.

Mr. Lakshminath Bhattacharya Mr. Arpan Bairagi ... for the petitioner Mr. Ratul Biswas Mr. Kaushik Chowdhury ... for the WBBPE Mr. Biman Halder ... for the State 1.

This writ petition has been filed seeking direction upon the respondent authorities for publication of results of the interview/viva voce for recruitment to the post of Primary Teachers in the year 2014 selection process held on 26th May, 2023 by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education and for issuance of the appointment letter in favour of the petitioner.

2.

The petitioner contends that she participated in the TET, 2014 and was successful in the said examination. The petitioner participated in recruitment process of the year 2022. Interview letter was issued to the petitioner vide letter dated 19th May, 2023. The petitioner appeared before the interview Board and fared well. However, neither the petitioner was granted appointment nor results were published. Being aggrieved with such action of the

respondent authorities, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.

3.

Mr. Lakshminath Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the candidate with lesser marks have been given appointment. As such, the appointment letter ought to have been issued in favour of the petitioner.

4.

On the contrary, Mr. Ratul Biswas, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Board submits that the panel has been published in respect of the recruitment process of 2022. The candidates who qualified, have already been given appointment. The recruitment process of 2022 has not been challenged by any of the candidates before this Court. There are also no averment to the extent that a candidate having lesser marks than the petitioner has been given appointment. Hence this writ petition should be dismissed in limine.

5.

The precise contention which has been pressed into service on behalf of the petitioner is that a candidate with lesser marks than that of the petitioner has been given appointment. It is pertinent to note that there is no such averment in the writ petition in such regard. Hence, the writ petition falls short of merit and accordingly is liable to be dismissed.

6.

Accordingly, the writ petition being WPA 22458 of 2023 stands dismissed.

7.

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

8.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

9.

All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of.

10.

There shall be no order as to costs.

11.

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

12.

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.)