18.6.2025 Ct. No. 8 SB MAT 1844 of 2024 CAN 1 of 2024 (Section 5)

CAN 2 of 2024 CAN 3 of 2025 (for Stay)

CAN 4 of 2025 (addition of party)

Shyam Tudu & Ors.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Sarajit Sen Mr. Parag Mitra … for the appellants Mr. Mrinal Kanti Sardar ..(in CAN 4 of 205)

Mr. Debashis Saha, … for the added respondents Mr. Kaushik Chowdhury … for WBBPE Mr. Avishek Parasad … for DPSC Malda Soumen Sen, J. (Oral):

1.

1. The prayer for leave to prefer an appeal and with a prayer for condonation of delay are heard together.

CAN 1 of 2024 (Section 5)

2. There is a delay of 111 days in filing the appeal.

3. We are satisfied with the explanation offered for not being able to file the appeal within the period of limitation. The delay of 11 days is condoned.

4. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and disposed of.

MAT 1844 of 2024

5. It appears that the appellants filed their writ petitions after April 25, 2024 although it is claimed that it was affirmed on

19.4.2024.

6. It appears from the submission of Mr. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the D.P.S.C. Malda that persons similarly placed and situated as that of the present appellants have filed writ petition being WPA 25712 of 2022 regarding the recruitment process initiated in the year 2009 and the said writ petition was dismissed as it was filed after 25.4.2024. The learned Single Judge directed that all the writ petitions filed until 25.4.2024 may be considered and cannot be extended beyond such time and the said order was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court unsuccessfully.

7. It appears that the said issue came up for consideration before a co-ordinate Bench. While affirming the order dated 26.4.2024 passed by the learned Single judge in WPA

25712 of 2022, it was inter alia observed that ;-

“It was categorically observed in the said Judgment that all the candidates who were called for the interview in the said recruitment process and have filed the writ petitions before this Court till 25^th April, 2024, they shall be entitled to appointments against the existing and future vacancies. It was further observed that even the applications for addition of party having filed before the said timeline, the proposed added candidates shall stand on the same footing with that of the writ petitioners and shall be extended the same benefit. The petitioner’s claim was rejected by the Court solely on the ground that his writ petition came to be filed beyond the deadline set up in the said order.

Indubitably the writ petition was affirmed on 25^th April 2024 but was filed on 3^rd May, 2024. Precisely the date of filing was considered by the Single Bench in arriving at the conclusion that the benefit of the order dated 26^th May, 2024 passed in WPA 25712 of 2022 cannot be extended. It is revealed in course of the hearing that though the recruitment process for the year 2009 was initiated in the year 2010 but because of the procedural hassles and the decision taken by the authorities on the basis of several litigations filed before the Court and orders passed therein, the panel of the successful candidate was published in the year 2021. The writ petitions came to be filed on and from the year 2022 and some in the year 2024 as well.

The moot question involved in the instant appeal whether an affirmation of a writ petition would constitute the filing of the writ petition or in other words the filing date of the writ petition would relate back to the date of affirmation of the said writ petitions. The answer is unambiguous and simple that the proceeding shall be treated to have been filed on a date when it is presented for its acceptance and assigned the appropriate number by the department. There is no rule as of now that the filing date would be treated on the basis of date of affirmation. There is no constrain on the part of the litigant in not filing the legal proceedings before the Court after the same is affirmed if he chose not to pursue the matter any fu