Sumitesh Dingal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 7710 Cal

12.   21.11.2022
BD    Ct.15                         W.P.A. 7587 of 2017

                                      Sumitesh Dingal
                                            -vs-
                               The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                                  Mr. Ekramul Bari
                                  Syed Mansoor Ali
                                  Ms. Tanuja Basak
                                               ... for the petitioner.

                            Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the
                   petitioner is taken on record.

                            The grievance of the petitioner is incorrect
                   assessment made by the examiner while examining
                   the answer script of mathematics of the petitioner
                   who participated in the 11th Regional Level Selection
                   Test (AT), 2010 for appointment in the post of
                   Assistant Teacher in mathematics (Honours/PG)
                   conducted by the concerned authority of the West
                   Bengal School Service Commission.

                         The     learned   advocate   representing     the
                   petitioner submits that had there been correct
                   assessment of answers written by the petitioner to
                   question nos. 16 and 30 and if based on correct
                   assessment appropriate marks would have been
                   awarded petitioner could have come within the zone
                   of consideration for being appointed in the post of
                   Assistant Teacher in mathematics since the marks
                   which was awarded to the petitioner was 42.66
                   whereas the last empanelled candidate under the
                   same category who got employment obtained 44
                   marks.
                              2




     Today this Court has heard the learned
advocate      representing       the   petitioner.    However,
School       Service     Commission       and        the        State
respondents are not represented in spite of service

of notice.

Having considered the submission made on behalf of the petitioner it appears that petitioner is praying for reassessment of the answers written by him to question nos. 16 and 30.

On query it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no provision in the statute permitting the examiner appointed by the Commission to reassess the answer script of the candidate. In absence of statutory provisions empowering the concerned authority of the Commission to reassess the answer script the prayer as made in the writ petition for such reassessment cannot be acceded to.

In this regard reliance has been placed on the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2018(2) SCC 357 (Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. -vs- State of U.P. & Ors.).

In the above conspectus the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings.

(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)