IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
The State of West Bengal and Others – Appellants
Versus
Sudipta Ghosh – Respondent
RVW No. 163 2021, CAN No. 1 of 2021, CAN No. 3 of 2023, WPA No. 3086 of 2019
Decided On : 05-10-2023
JUDGMENT :
SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
1. The instant review application preferred by the State of West Bengal and Others (hereinafter referred to as the “applicants”) arises out of an order dated January 11, 2021 passed by this Court in W.P.A 3086 of 2019.
Facts
2. I have outlined the facts leading to the instant review application below:
a. The respondent in the instant review application Sudipta Ghosh (hereinafter referred to as the “ writ petitioner”) having qualification B.Sc. (Honours) in Mathematics had participated in the selection process at 11th RLST, (AT), 2010 conducted by the West Bengal Regional School Service Commission, Northern Region and after being selected, his name was recommended for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Mathematics (Hons.) in Haribhanga Junior High School, District – Cooch Behar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘school’) vide Memo dated June 24, 2011. Pursuant to the appointment letter issued by the school authority dated July 20, 2011, the writ petitioner joined the service on July 25, 2011. The District Inspect of Schools (S.E.), Cooch Behar (hereinafter referred to as the “D.I. of Schools’) approved the appointment of the writ petitioner with the honours scale as prescribed under the ROPA Rules, 2009 vide Memo dated August 17, 2011. Subsequently the appointment of the writ petitioner was approved permanently vide Memo dated May 17, 2013.
b. The writ petitioner was pursuing M.Sc course in the Vinayaka Missions University for the session 2009-2011 through distance education and was admitted in the said University. The writ petitioner completed his M.Sc. Part – 1 course before entering into his service in the school. The writ petitioner applied before the Managing Committee of the school for permission to complete his M.Sc. Part – II course through distance mode. The Ad-Hoc Committee of the school adopted a resolution in the meeting dated September 06, 2011 allowing the writ petitioner to sit in his M.Sc. Part – IIII examination. The Member Secretary namely S.I. of schools, Sadar Circle-IV, Haribhanga through its Memo dated September 08, 2011 forwarded the prayer of the petitioner with all relevant papers to the D.I. of Schools for permission to undergo M.Sc. Part-II examination and necessary action.
c. The writ petitioner made an application before the Member Secretary, Ad-Hoc Committee of School for grant of study leave for the period from September 19,. 2011 to September 23, 2011 to sit in the M.Sc. Part-II examination. The Member Secretary granted the writ petitioner the study leave of five days. After obtaining the said study leave, the writ petitioner sat in his M.Sc. Part – II examination and successfully passed the same.
d. After upgradation in the qualification off the petitioner from B.Sc. (Honours) in Mathematics to M.Sc. in Mathematics the writ petitioner applied before the school authority on April 04, 2012 for granting post graduate scale of pay as per relevant ROPA rules. The Member Secretary of the Ad- Hoc Committee of the school vide memo dated July 07, 2012 forwarded the writ petitioner’s application to the D.I. of Schools for his consideration. The writ petitioner also made a prayer to the D.I. of Schools for grant of post graduate scale of pay for his M.Sc. qualification.
e. Since no action was allegedly being taken by the D.I. of Schools in granting the writ petitioner post graduate scale of pay, a writ petition was moved before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of on December 20, 2017 with direction issued to the D.I. of Schools to consider the claim of the petitioner for post graduate scale of pay in accordance with law and pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the writ petitioner within six weeks from the date of communication of the order.
f. The writ petitioner was asked to appear at the office of the D.I. of Schools on January 15, 2019. The writ petitioner appeared on the said date. On January 21, 2019, the writ petitioner received a communica






A review of a judgment is permissible only on specific grounds such as error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new evidence, and cannot be used to reargue the case or introduce new c....
Review jurisdiction cannot be exercised to rehear a case or correct an erroneous decision without evidence of an error apparent on the face of the record.
A review petition must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record to warrant reconsideration of a judgment; mere repetition of previous arguments does not suffice.
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it addresses only material errors apparent on record, not new arguments or hearsay.
An appeal would lie against an order passed in a review of the order under Article 226 of the Constitution, even if the original order is retained, once the review petition is entertained and the add....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.