[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Utpal Mandal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 18 March, 2026
Author: Amrita Sinha
Bench: Amrita Sinha
OD-1 ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
WPO No.82 of 2026
UTPAL MANDAL
VS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA
Date:18th March, 2026.
Appearance:
Mr. Srikanta Dutta, Adv.
Mrs. Rituparna Sarkar Dutta, Adv.
...for the Petitioner.
Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee,
Ld. AGP, Sr. Adv.
...for the State-respondents.
1. Copy of the order dated 10th March, 2026 by the Registrar, West Bengal
State Administrative Tribunal in Case No. OA 315 of 2023 (Utpal
Mandal Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) has been placed before this
Court.
2. It appears therefrom that the applicant before the Tribunal, being the
writ petitioner herein, took steps for withdrawal of the Original
Application before the Tribunal. Due to non availability of the Bench,
the application has been posted for passing order on 21 st May, 2026.
3. Admittedly, the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal is non-
functional for a considerable period of time for which the litigants are
compelled to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
4. As the petitioner has already filed an application seeking withdrawal of
the Original Application, the Court is proceeding with the instant writ
petition which has been filed by the petitioner challenging the steps
taken by the respondent authority for conducting recruitment by the
Kolkata Police Recruitment Board on the undertaking of the petitioner
that he will not proceed with the Original Application before the
Tribunal.
5. The subject recruitment process was initiated in the year 2012. The
petitioner participated in the recruitment process but was not
successful in the same. Certain illegalities have come to the notice of
the petitioner in the year 2022 for which he filed the Original
Application before the Tribunal in the year 2023, but till date the
Original Application could not be taken up for admission due to non
availability of the judicial forum. Finding no other alternative the instant
writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in February, 2026.
6. Learned advocate for the petitioner has pointed out several facts which,
according to the petitioner, are grave illegalities in the recruitment
process. It has been submitted that candidates who did not qualify in
the preliminary examinations that is the PMT and PET have been
provided appointment. General category candidates have been provided
appointment relying on the cut off marks for the reserved category.
Several instances have been pointed out by the petitioner.
7. Prayer has been made to produce the panel of selected candidates along
with break-up of marks merit-wise and category-wise.
8. The prayer of the petitioner is opposed by the learned senior Counsel
representing the respondents. It has been submitted that the petitioner
being an unsuccessful candidate in the recruitment process initiated in
the year 2012, could not be permitted to challenge the steps taken in
the said recruitment process in the year 2026.
9. The Original Application filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal is
still pending consideration and the instant writ petition on the self-same
cause of action ought not to be entertained.
10. It has further been submitted that as the recruitment process is long
over and appointments have been given long back. The department does
not have any records in respect of the same. Prayer has been made to
dismiss the writ petition.
11. As regards the issue raised about entertainability of the writ petition
during pendency of the Original Application, as it appears that the
petitioner has already filed an application seeking withdrawal of the
Original Application but no order could be passed thereon because of
non-availability of the Bench and as undertaking has been given before
this Court that the petitioner would not press the Original Application,
accordingly, the Court is minded to consider the writ petition on merits.
12. Whether the petitioner will be able to satisfy the Court on merits has
to be decided upon exchange of affidavits.
13. The respondents are directed to file affidavit-in-opposition supported
by necessary documents within a period of six weeks from date. Reply
thereto, if any, be filed within a fortnight thereafter. List the matter for
hearing immediately after completion of the aforesaid time period.
14. Parties to act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly
downloaded from the official website of this Court.
(AMRITA SINHA, J.)
nm
