Smti. Monalisa Biswas v. The Chief Secretary And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/8/2026 IA No. CAN/1/2026 CAN/2/2026 Smt. Monalisa Biswas Vs The Chief Secretary and others Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the appellant Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the respondents February 03, 2026 [SR] Item No.6 From the affidavit-of-service, which is on record, we see that the private respondents have been served. However, nobody appears for them.

This appeal is directed against a judgement and order dated December 19, 2025, whereby the appellant's writ petition being WPA/596/2025 was dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court.

The appellant/writ petitioner had approached the learned Single Judge challenging the Office Order No. 1173 dated November 25, 2025, issued by the respondent No.3, being the Director of Social Welfare, Andaman and Nicobar Administration. The said Office Order reflected the final seniority in respect of the Mukhya Sevikas working under the respondent No.3. In the said order, the private respondent Nos.5 and 6 were shown to be above the writ petitioner although, according to the writ petitioner, she scored more marks and in the combined merit list, she ranked higher than the respondent Nos.5 and 6.

The learned Judge saw that on the basis of the appointment letters, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 were placed higher than the writ petitioner. In between the date of appointment and issuance of the Office Order which was challenged in the writ petition, there were other lists in some of which the writ petitioner was placed higher in seniority than the respondent Nos.5 and 6.

The learned Judge gave weightage to the appointment letters and, on that basis, upheld the Office Order under challenge, consequently, dismissing the writ petition. Hence this appeal.

Learned advocate for the appellant says that subsequent to disposal of the writ petition, the appellant has been able to lay her hands on certain documents and information which were not in her possession/knowledge when the writ petition was heard and disposed of by the learned Single Judge. Such documents/information would indubitably establish the seniority of the appellant/writ petitioner vis-à-vis the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Hence, learned counsel wants us to set aside the order under appeal.

We see no apparent infirmity in the order under appeal. The new documents/fresh information that the appellant seeks to rely upon before us, were not placed before the learned Single Judge. Her Ladyship did not have the benefit of considering such documents/information. Hence, it will be unfair on our part to interfere with the order under appeal on the basis of such new documents/fresh information.

The appeal accordingly stands dismissed. However, the appellant will be at liberty to approach the learned Single Judge with an appropriate application in accordance with law. If so approached, we request the learned Judge to consider the issue of limitation in the light of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The appeal and the connected applications stand disposed of.

(Arijit Banerjee, J.) (Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)