IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay

CAN 2 of 2024

in connection with

WPA 12648 of 2018

Avik Chatterjee

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ekramul Bari

: Mr. Sk. Imtiaj Uddin : Mr. Alauddin Ahmed

For the State : Mr. Somnath Ganguli, ld. AGP

: Mr. Jayanta Samanta

Judgment on : 28.10.2025

Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-

1) CAN 2 of 2024 is an application, filed by the State, to seek

recall of this Court’s orders dated March 28, 2024 and April 5, 2024, in the writ petition No. WPA 12648 of 2018 [Avik

Chatterjee vs The State of West Bengal].

2) Grounds of recall as made out therein are as follows:

a. The writ petitioner was appointed in the said minority institution, through direct recruitment, without taking prior approval from the Higher Education Department, Government of West Bengal;

b. The qualification required was ‘Graduate’, in violation of the Government Order No. 1077-Edn(CS) dated November 23, 1998, according to which the minimum qualification should be ‘Madhyamik’;

c. In the process Government Order No. 915-Edn(CS) dated November 19, 2007 and Government Order No. 887-

Edn(CS) dated November 19, 2010, were flouted;

d. That appointment of the writ petitioner to the post of ‘Cashier’, is dependent on availability of the post as a vacant one, which cannot be considered as such, unless the promotion of the present incumbent therein is approved by the authority; whereas the authority has rejected approval of such promotion of the other person due to the alleged violation of the notifications as mentioned above; that unless the post can be treated as vacant, the writ petitioner cannot be approved in service.

3) The writ petitioner has objected to the prayer of recall as above.

A preliminary point of maintainability of the recalling application as above has been put forth. It is submitted that change of conducting advocate cannot be considered as a just ground to recall the order passed earlier. It is further submitted that the grounds pleaded touch the merits of the case, which is not to be considered again after final disposal of the writ petition; at best a fresh cause of action can be said to have arisen and nothing more. Also, that at the time of hearing of the writ petition the applicant/State has been granted ample opportunity and the Court has considered submissions of both the parties before coming to a conclusion vide the orders dated March 28, 2024 and April 5, 2024. Therefore, there would not be any scope in the guise of this recalling application, for reappreciation of the case on merits. In support, the writ petitioner has relied on the following judgments: (i) Tamil Nadu Electric Board & Another vs N.Raju Reddiar & Another [(1997) 9 SCC 736]; (ii) State of Uttar Pradesh vs Brahm Datt Sharma & Another [(1987) 2 SCC 179]; and (iii) Asit Kumar Kar vs State of West Bengal & Others [(2009) 2 SCC

703]

4) The maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium says that it is for the public good that there be an end to litigation. At some stage, it is necessary to put a quietus. The law as to when can an order of the Court be recalled is well settled. Principles of finality is based on high principle of public policy. Recalling of an order of the Court should not be merely for rehearing of the matter and fresh decision. It would be permissible only under extremely compelling and exceptional circumstances. Although there can be no exhaustive list of such exceptional circumstances, certain circumstances may be mentioned as conducive for a recall application, like non-consideration of a material statutory provision, any manifest wrong or injustice seen to have been done, violation of the principles of natural justice and the applicant seen to have not been extended opportunity of hearing et cetra. An order of the Court can be recalled under specific circumstances where the order suffers from procedural illegality, lack of jurisdiction, fraud, collu