IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay WPA 19469 of 2019 Paramita Pramanik & Ors.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

CAN 1/2020, CAN 2/2020,CAN 3/2020,CAN 4/2020, CAN 5/2021, CAN 6/2021, CAN 7/2021, CAN 8/2021, CAN 9/2021, CAN 10/2021, CAN 11/2021, CAN 12/2021, CAN 13/2021, CAN 14/2021, CAN 15/2021, CAN 16/2022, CAN 17/2022, CAN 18/2022, CAN 19/2022, CAN 20/2024, CAN 21/2024, CAN

23/2025 With WPA 22367 of 2019 Ishita Ghosh Pal & Ors.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

CAN 1/2020, CAN 2/2020,CAN 3/2020,CAN 4/2020,CAN 5/2020,CAN

6/2020,CAN 7/2021,CAN 8/2021,CAN 9/2021,CAN 10/2021, CAN 11/2021, CAN 12/2021,CAN 13/2021,CAN 14/2021,CAN 15/2021,CAN 16/2021, CAN 17/2021,CAN 18/2021,CAN 19/2021,CAN 20/2022,CAN 21/2022, CAN /22/2022,CAN 23/2022, CAN 24/2022, CAN25/2022,CAN 26/2022,CAN 27/2022,CAN 28/2022, CAN 29/2022,CAN 30/2022,CAN 31/2022,CAN 32/2022, CAN 33/2022, CAN 34/2022, CAN 35/2022, CAN 36/2023, CAN 37/2023, CAN 38/2023, CAN 39/2023, CAN 40/2023, CAN 41/2023, CAN 42/2023, CAN 43/2023, CAN 44/2023, CAN 45/2023, CAN 46/2023, CAN 47/2024, CAN 48/2024, CAN 49/2024, CAN 50/2024, CAN 51/2024, CAN 52/2024, CAN 53/2024, CAN 54/2024, CAN 55/2024, CAN 56/2024, CAN 57/2025, CAN

58/2025 For the Petitioners : Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharyya : Mr. Goutam Dey : Mr. Ms. Ankita Ghosh : Ms. Akshita Nath : Mr. Abhijit Mondal For the WBCSSC : Mr. Dr. Santanu Kr. Patra : Ms. Supriya Debey For the State : Mr. Supriyo Chattopadhyay : Ms. Iti Dutta Judgment on : 18.03.2026 Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-

1. The two writ petitions No. WPA 22367(w) of 2019 [Ishita Ghosh Pal & Others vs State of West Bengal & Others] and WPA 19469(w) of 2019 [Paramita Pramanick & Others vs State of West Bengal & Others], deal with similar factual and legal issues. Hence, both have been heard together and are being disposed of vide this common judgment.

2. The writ petitioners have sought for intervention and order of this Court of equity, to redress their grievance of alleged discriminatory and illegal treatment meted out to them by the respondent School Service Commission, by not appointing them in the posts of assistant teachers, which according to the petitioners remained vacant, even after appointment of qualified candidates in the 12th Regional Level Selection Test [in short “12th RLST”] in 2011, in spite of their having qualified in the Teachers‟ Eligibility Test [in short “TET”], 2011.

3. Let it be mentioned at the outset that the respondent No.3/West Bengal Central School Service Commission [in short “SSC”], represented by Dr. Santanu Kr. Patra, learned advocate, has raised strong objection as to the grievance of the writ petitioners with regard to appointment procedure, in the posts of primary school teachers. According to the said respondent, since the process, challenged in the instant writ petitions, is not related with the primary school teachers, the entire writ petitions are therefore baseless and liable to be set aside. The petitioners have mentioned in paragraph (5) of their affidavit dated July 10, 2024, that the same has been a typographical mistake in the writ petitions, corrected earlier vide the Court‟s order. Such statement is duly corroborated by the record, which shows that vide liberty granted by the Court on June 9, 2023, prayer in the writ petitions were modified to include that the petitioners challenge as to the process of appointment of the assistant teachers in upper primary level of the schools, instead of primary level. Hence any challenge as to the maintainability of the writ petitions for the reason as agitated by the respondent as stated above, should rest here, being unsubstantiated.

4. Also, there is other point raised by the said respondent challenging the maintainability of the instant cases, on the ground of delay in filing the instant writ petitions. The same will be discussed later on in this judgment.

5. The relevant facts leading to filing of these writ petitions