Md Anisur Rahaman And ORS v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

17.11.2025 d.p.

In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side W.P.A 23952 of 2025 IA No. CAN 1 of 2025 Md. Ansur Rahaman & Ors.

-versus State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta, Mr. Bikram Banerjee.

Ms. Sinjini Chakraborti, Mr. Ritwik Basu.

...For the Petitioners.

Mr. Vimal Kumar Shahi, AGP, Mr. Subhajit Chowdhury.

...For the State.

Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, Ms. Pramiti Bandopahdyay, Mr. Arka Kumar Nag, Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh.

...For WBCSSC.

Mr. Subir Sanyal, Sr. Adv, Mr. Avik Pramanik, Mr. Sourojit Mukherjee, Mr. Trijit Mitra.

...For the Applicant in CAN 1 of 2025.

1.

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

2.

Report filed by the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Purba Bardhaman and the District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Murshidabad both dated 13th November, 2025 filed in Court today is taken on record.

3.

The petitioners pray for grant of marks in the recruitment process of 2nd SLST, 2025 on account of their prior teaching experience.

4.

The West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection for Appointment to the Posts of Assistant Teachers for Upper Primary Level of Classes [except Work Education and Physical Education], Classes IX-X and Classes XI-XII) Rules, 2025 prescribes marks for prior teaching experience in service in a substantive post (as permanent or on contractual basis).

5.

Whether the petitioners would be entitled to the marks allocated for prior teaching experience is to be decided by the Commission.

6.

Copy of the report of the DI of Schools has been handed over to the learned advocate representing the Commission for onward transmission to the authority for taking a decision as to whether the petitioners would be entitled to any mark(s) for prior teaching experience.

7.

A decision shall be taken by the Commission at the earliest and the fate of the petitioners' prayer for grant of mark(s) upon consideration of their prior teaching experience shall be communicated to them without any further delay.

8.

Though the Commission sought for a direction for filing affidavit in the matter but as the Court is not deciding the issue and the same is being relegated to the Commission for taking a decision, accordingly, the Court is not inclined to grant any opportunity to the Commission for filing affidavit. 9.

Moreover, the recruitment process has to be concluded within a specified time period in compliance of the direction passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and keeping the matter pending before the Court will not serve any purpose.

10. The writ petition stands disposed of.

11. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the connected application also stands disposed of.

12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

( Amrita Sinha, J.)