Ct.No.1 D/L 06.04.2026

288 Saikat Mukherjee WPA(P)/31/2021 with CAN/2/2022 with CAN/5/2025 ASHIS MANDAL VS.

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Mr. Pradip Kr. Roy, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Joydeep Roy, Adv.

…For the Respondent No.2 Mr. Joydeep Kar, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Satish Verma, Adv.

Mr. Deepnath Roy Chowdhury, Adv.

Mr. Vijay Verma, Adv.

Mr. Asis Dutta, Adv.

…For the Respondent Nos.3-5 Mr. Srijan Nayak, Adv.

Ms. Rituparna Maitra, Adv.

Mr. Partha Sarathi Pal, Adv.

…For the Respondent Nos.6-8 Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Ashish Chakraborty, Adv.

Mr. Subhomoy Paul, Adv.

…For the Respondent No.27 Mr. Ankit Sureka, Adv.

Mr. Biplob Das, Adv.

…For the Respondent No.62 Mr. Tapan Kr. Mukherjee, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Shamiul Bari, Adv.

Mr. Jayanta Samanta, Adv. …For the Respondent-State Dictated by Sujoy Paul, CJ.

1. None for the petitioner.

2. The respondents are represented through their respective learned counsel.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents jointly raised twin objections – (i) that the employer is a co-

operative society which is not a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India;

(ii) the petitioner is challenging the recruitment notice dated 31^st January, 2019, which makes the petition essentially a ‘service matter’. PIL in service matter is not maintainable.

4. The petitioner, for the reasons best known to him remained absent.

5. This court after considering a catena of judgments opined that PIL in service matters is not maintainable. In WPA (P) No. 268 of 2024 (Md. Kalim Ashraf & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.), this Court has held as under:- “3. The point involved is no more res integra. This Court in WPA (P) 299 of 2025 decided on 14.08.2025 considered the entire legal journey on this aspect and recorded as under:

“The Apex Court in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra (1998) 7 SCC 273 opined that the PIL in service matters is not maintainable. The said judgment of the Supreme Court was consistently followed in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B. (2004) 3 SCC 349; B. Singh (Dr.) v. Union of India (2004) 3 SCC 363; Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2005) 5 SCC 136; Kushum Lata v. Union of India (2006) 6 SCC 180; Neetu v. State of Punjab (2007) 10 SCC 614; Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto (2010) 9 SCC 655; Grijesh Shrivastava v. State of M.P. (2010) 10 SCC 707; Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 4 SCC 465, State of Punjab v. Salil Sabhlok (2013) 5 SCC 1; Vishal Ashok Thorat v. Rajesh Shriramjbapu Fate (2020) 18 SCC 673 and State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma (2022)

19 SCC 626 A Division Bench of Calcutta High Court considered some of aforesaid judgments in the case of Baidyanath Saha vs. Union of India & Ors. WPA (P) 92 of 2021 decided on 11.04.2022 and opined as under:

“2. Having examined the petition, we find that the petitioner has not disclosed his credentials except by stating that he has no direct pecuniary interest in the matter and that he is a socially committed law abiding citizen. It is the settled position of law that in service matters, PIL is not maintainable. The persons, if any, affected by the advertisement can always file the appropriate petition or approach the appropriate forum questioning the same. In the matter of Girjesh Shrivastava and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in MANU/SC/0888/2010 : (2010) 10 SCC 707 where in a Public Interest Litigation, allegation of non- issuance of proper advertisement for reservation for ex- servicemen was made, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court taking note of the legal position in respect of maintainability of the PIL in a service dispute had held that:

“14. However, the main argument by the appellants against entertaining WP (C) No. 1520 of 2001 and WP (C) No. 63 of 2002 is on the ground that a PIL in a service matter is not maintainable. This Court is of the opinion that there is considerable merit in that contention. It is common ground that dispute in this case is over selection and appointment which is a service matter.

15.