20.01.2026 Ct. No. 11 rrc FMA 1205 of 2024 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2024 (Santa Kumari Shil @ Sil Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.)

Mr. Dilip Kumar Maity …. For the appellant Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay Mr. Pinaki Bhattacharyya …… For the State respondents Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra Ms. Supriya Dubey …… For the W.B.C.S.S.C. Ms. Koyeli Bhttacharyya Mr. Bibek Dutta …… For the W.B.B.S.E.

This intra-court appeal has been preferred questioning the legality of the order dated 20th August, 2024 passed in WPA 9309 of 2023, whereby the writ petition was dismissed on account of its belated presentation Briefly stated, the facts leading to the institution of the present appeal are that the writ petitioner/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant’) participated in the 12th Regional Level Selection Test (in short, RLST), 2011, as an untrained female Scheduled Caste, non-in-service candidate for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Hindi (Pass) in Non-Government Aided Hindi-medium Secondary Schools.

Almost eleven years thereafter, in the year 2022, she made an application under the relevant provisions of the Right to Information Act before the competent authority seeking information regarding the marks obtained by the last empanelled candidate under the said category. Upon examining the information furnished to her pursuant to such application, she apprehended that the candidates placed below her in the merit list had been appointed in disregard of merit, thereby depriving the petitioner of her rightful appointment.

To ventilate such grievance, the petitioner filed the writ petition on 17th April, 2023. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge observed that the panel prepared pursuant to the 12th RLST, 2011 had expired on 24th March, 2015, whereas the writ petition was filed much thereafter. The learned Single Judge further observed that upon expiry of the panel, a candidate who had participated in the selection process no longer retains any right to be considered in connection with the said selection process i.e. the 12th RLST, 2011. It was also held that no relief could be granted to the petitioner nearly eight years after the expiry of the panel. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been preferred.

Mr. Maity, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, submits that the learned Single Judge declined to grant any relief solely on the ground of belated approach. He contends that the law of limitation does not strictly apply to writ proceedings. In support of such contention, he relies upon the decision reported in (1983) 2 SCC 1 (Smt. Sudama Devi v.

Commissioner and Others).

He further submits that the petitioner secured 72 marks, whereas the last empanelled candidate secured 59 marks. Therefore, had the petitioner’s candidature been duly and properly considered, she would have been appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher in Hindi.

In response, Ms. Dubey, learned advocate appearing for the Commission, submits that the petitioner is an untrained female Scheduled Caste, non-in-service candidate. She submits that according to the applicable rules, trained candidates are required to be called for counselling first, and only if vacancies remain thereafter, untrained candidates may be considered. She submits that in the present case, no untrained female Scheduled Caste candidate was called for counselling. She further submits that only one untrained male candidate under the Scheduled Caste category, having temporary in-service status, was called for counselling. Accordingly, she refutes the petitioner’s contention that candidates placed below her in the merit list were favoured with appointment.

Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents, adopts the submissions advanced by Ms. Dubey. Similarly, Ms. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing for the Board, also supports the contentions advanced by Ms.

Dubey.

Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.