Jharna Biswas v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

24.11.2025 d.p.

In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side W.P.A 26534 of 2025 Jharna Biswas -versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Sudip Ghosh Chowdhury.

...For the Petitioner.

Mr. Nilay Baran Mandal.

...For the State.

Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bandopadhyay, Sr. Adv, Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharjee, Ms. Pramiti Bandopadhyay, Mr. Arka Kumar Nag, Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh.

...For WBCSSC.

1.

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

2.

The petitioner participated in the 2nd SLST for recruitment in respect of Classes-IX-X and XI-XII. She filled up the details of her prior teaching experience in the application form meant for Classes-IX and X but alleges that she was unable to fill up the details of prior teaching experience in respect of Classes-XI and XII due to technical glitches.

3.

Prayer has been made to direct the Commission to consider her request made for awarding marks on account of prior teaching experience as submitted in the representation dated 16th November, 2025.

4.

The aforesaid prayer has been opposed by the learned advocate representing the Commission.

5.

Upon hearing the parties it appears that the Commission extended the time limit for editing the application form in the month of August.

6.

The petitioner, for reasons best known to her, either failed or did not take steps to edit her application form by incorporating the details of her prior teaching experience.

7.

The Commission asserts that there were no technical glitches as alleged.

8.

Facts remains that the result of the written examination has been declared and the interview list has also been published.

9.

At this stage any direction passed upon the Commission to consider the petitioner's prayer will dislodge the interview list which has already been published.

10. Had the petitioner approached this Court prior to publication of the result and the interview list, the prayer could have been considered. But at such belated point of time, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be allowed.

11. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

12. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.

( Amrita Sinha, J.)