IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas RVW 148 of 2025 With IA No. : CAN 1 of 2025 With IA No. : CAN 2 of 2025 Kausik Majumdar Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

In MAT 490 of 2024 IA No. : CAN 1 of 2024 Kausik Majumdar Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Writ Petitioner/ : Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, Ld. Sr. Adv.

Appellant/Applicant Mr. Samim Ahammed, Adv.

Mr. Arka Maiti, Adv.

Ms. Ambiya Khatun, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Biswabrata Basu Mallick, Ld. AGP Mr. K.M.Hossain, Adv.

For the Respondent Nos. : Mr. Suddhasatwa Banerjee, Adv.

2 to 4 Mr. Ujjal Ray, Adv.

Mr. Atreya Chakraborty, Adv.

Mr. A. Chakraborty, Adv.

Hearing Concluded on : November 7, 2025 Judgement on : November 13, 2025 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. Appellant has applied for review of the judgement and order dated December 23, 2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench in MAT 490 of 2024 with CAN 1 of 2024.

2. Review proceedings have been specially assigned to this Bench in view of the fact that, one of the Hon’ble Judges of the Coordinate Bench is no longer available in this Court.

3. Learned senior advocate appearing for the review applicant has submitted that, a writ petition challenging the dismissal of the appellant was filed before this Hon’ble Court. In such writ petition, the learned single judge has held the writ petition to be not maintainable, by the judgement and order dated February 23, 2024, since, the educational institution did not fall within the expansive definition of State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. By the judgement and order under review, the Coordinate Bench has upheld such decision of the learned single judge.

4. Learned senior advocate appearing for the review applicant has contended that, the educational institution in question, is governed by the Board of Regulations for Anglo- Indian and other Listed Schools, 1993. He has pointed out that, the educational institution concerned is included in the list of the Regulations of 1993.

5. Learned senior advocate appearing for the review applicant has contended that, by reason of the service conditions of the review applicant as a teacher of the educational institution concerned, being governed by the Regulations of 1993, and by virtue of the ratio laid down in 2023 Volume 4 Supreme Court Cases 498 (St Mary’s Education Society and Another Versus Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and others), the writ petition is maintainable. He has contended that, the service conditions of the review applicant are governed by the Regulations of 1993 which partakes the flavour of a statute.

6. Learned senior advocate appearing for the review applicant has submitted that, two writ petitions as against the same educational institution, were held to be maintainable by this Hon’ble Court. He has referred to the orders passed by the learned single judge in such writ petitions. He has submitted that, in respect of one of the writ petitions, although an appeal was preferred, the same was withdrawn by the educational institution concerned.

7. Learned senior advocate appearing for the review applicant has contended relying upon 2020 Volume 2 Supreme Court Cases 33 (Yashwant Sinha and Others Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation) that the review is maintainable. He has also referred to the order dated April 20, 2025 passed in the Special Leave Petition directed against the judgement and order under review. He has contended that, the Special Leave Petition of the appellant was allowed to be withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. The review applicant had sought liberty from the Hon’ble Supreme Court to seek review of the judgement and order under review, which was granted.

8. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent has questioned the maintainability of the review proceedings. In support of his contention that, the review is not maintainable, he has drawn the attention of the Court to the contents of the judgem