Calcutta High CourtWPA/23049/2023dismissed

Mitali Paul v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

2024-11-27Hon'Ble Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya3 pages

166.

(ML) (ML) 27.11.2024 27.11.2024 Ct. No. 18 (ARPAN) W.P.A. 23049 of 2023 Mitali Paul Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Anjan Bhattacharya Ms. Anita Shaw ...for the Petitioner Mr. Jyoti Prakash Chatterjee Mr. Prashant Kumar Tripathi ...for the State Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra Ms. Supriya Dubey ...for the WBCSSC Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

Though initially Mr. Bhattacharya learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that the issue is related to 12th Regional Level Selection Test, 2011 but after the submission was made by the learned advocate representing the West Bengal Central School Service Commission it is fairly admitted by the learned advocate representing the petitioner that candidature of the petitioner was considered based on her participation in 1st State Level Selection Test, 2016 (Upper Primary). It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in spite of preparing a list which is at Page 28 of the writ petition where name of the petitioner appears at serial no.597 who was not subsequently adjudged as an eligible candidate to be considered for interview.

However, on consideration of the submission made on behalf of the Commission, it appears that grievance of the petitioner was considered by the Grievance Committee and an order was passed on 7th October, 2021 wherein it was decided that petitioner did not upload her testimonials within the period from 4th January, 2021 to 22nd January, 2021 in terms of notification dated 28th December, 2020 of the Commission. Furthermore, it transpires from a document at Page 27 of the writ petition that within the cut off date, that is, 24th October, 2016 petitioner failed to obtain teacher training qualification. Due to ineligibility of the petitioner for not having teacher training qualification she was not found to be a fit candidate for taking part in next round of selection process as a result whereof candidature of the petitioner was ultimately not taken into consideration.

In view of the aforesaid scenario no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

Hence, writ petition stands dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings.

(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)