Form No. J(2)

In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya And The Hon’ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya MAT 751 of 2021 IA No: CAN 2 of 2021 CAN 3 of 2025 Chayan Kumar Mondal Vs.

The State of West Bengal and others For the appellant : Md. Sarwar Jahan, Mr. Karunamoyee Shamanta, Ms. Tapati Sarkar, Ms. Shalini Sen, Ms. Sahina Parvin For the State : Mr. Tapan Kr. Mukherjee, AGP, Ms. Tapati Samanta For the Vidyasagar University : Ms. Debjani Sengupta, Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee, Ms. Koyel Bag Heard on : 09.12.2025 and 16.12.2025 Judgment on : 16.12.2025 Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The present challenge has been preferred against an order whereby the writ petition of the present appellant, challenging the process of selection for the post of Library Clerk in the respondent college was assailed.

2. The premise of the challenge in the writ petition was that the private respondent is the wife of the President of the governing body of the said college and had a direct role to play in the selection process. Moreover, learned counsel for the appellant argues before us, the private respondent received additional favours in the examination hall as well, which made it evident that the selection process was tainted by apprehension of bias.

3. Thirdly, by drawing our attention to certain portions of the impugned order, it is submitted that the records of the case were produced by the college authorities only at the time of hearing of the writ petition. By placing reliance on the same, without the records being brought on record by way of a proper affidavit and/or copies being served on the present appellant, it was contended that the private respondent secured higher marks in the written examination than the present appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that whereas the total marks allotted for the written test was 75, allegedly the private respondent obtained 116 marks, which is even more than the total marks allotted.

4. It is reiterated that the appellant himself took the written test for only

75 marks. Thus, it is argued that the selection process was vitiated by fraud or, at least, favouritism and bias and ought to have been set aside by the learned Single Judge.

5. We note from the records that despite repeated service of notice and direction by a coordinate Bench on June 11, 2025 for the college authorities to produce the records before this Court, the college authorities chose to remain absent on each occasion. Even at the last hearing, that is, on December 09, 2025, an affidavit-of-service was filed by the appellant indicating further service having been effected on the respondents. Despite the same, only the State and the concerned University, under which the college is affiliated, are represented through counsel before us today.

6. Thus, we have no other option but to dispose of the appeal in the absence of the private respondent and the college authorities.

7. An application for production of additional evidence in the nature of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant before this Court to bring on record the question paper of the written examination for the impugned selection test, which indicates that the total number of questions in the examination was 75 and the marks allotted to each question was 1 (one). Thus, the said document acquires vital relevance in the adjudication of the matter.

8. It is rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant took an examination for 75 marks and it was only at the final hearing of the writ petition that the college authorities apparently produced records, without service of any copy of the same on the appellant, and took the plea that 116 marks were obtained by the private respondent in the written test.

9. Hence, there was no opportunity of the appellant to bring to the notice of the writ court as to the palpable discrepancy in such allo