Ranjita Karan Dinda v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

appointment, Ranjita preferred the writ petition.

#3. By the order impugned in the present appeal Ranjita’s claim was rejected observing inter alia as follows: ‘In terms of the judgment dated 3rd April, 2025 all the candidates (tainted and untainted) lost their job. Therefore, it can be concluded that in terms of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 3rd April, 2025 husband of the petitioner would also lose job had he been alive. Husband died in 2021. Therefore, no right accrues in favour of the petitioner due to service rendered by the husband of the petitioner on being selected in 1st SLST, 2016 for Classes XI & XII.’

#4. Ms. Neogi learned advocate appearing for the appellant argues that the impugned order was 4 passed by the learned Single Judge without appreciating that by judgment dated

03.04.2025 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) no.9886 of 2024 [State of West Bengal vs Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Ors.], the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the untained candidates to appear in the fresh selection process. Amal was an untainted candidate and had he been alive, he would have got an opportunity to appear in such fresh selection process.

#5. She further submits that in the judgment dated 03.04.2025 it has not been answered as to what would be the fate of applications submitted for compassionate appointment in cases were death occurred prior to delivery of the judgment. In the said conspectus, the observation of the learned Single Judge in the order impugned that no right had accrued in favour of the Ranjita’s appointment due to the service rendered by her husband on being selected in 1st SLST, 2016 is not sustainable in law. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the directions contained in paragraphs 46 to 49 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5

#6. Ms. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing for the Board submits that appropriate steps could not be taken as the examination process pertaining to the 1st SLST, 2016 has been set aside.

#7. Answering our query, Mr. Singh, learned advocate appearing for the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) submits that the name of Ranjita’s husband does not feature in the list of tainted candidates published by the Commission on 30th August, 2025.

#8. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned advocate appearing for the State submits that Ranjita’s application for compassionate appointment was duly considered and her name was included in the death in harness roster and thereafter forwarded to the Commission vide memo dated 21.03.2024, i.e., prior to delivery of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Ors. on 03.04.2025.

#9. The fell clutch of circumstance and bludgeoning of fate left Amal’s family helpless after his unfortunate death prior the delivery of the judgment in the case of State of West Bengal 6 vs Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee). Ranjita’s name was also forwarded by the respondent no.4 and recommended by the Commission prior to the delivery of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

#10. The judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 03.04.2025 need to be considered together and not isolation. A particular clause cannot be picked up and highlighted. The selection process pertaining to the 1st SLST was declared null and void in the judgment dated 03.04.2025 observing inter alia that in spite of such cancellation, the untainted candidates would have the right to apply to their previous department or autonomous bodies to continue in service those entities. The untainted candidates would also have the right to apply to participate in a fresh selection process upon relaxation of age. As admittedly Amal is an untainted candidate, he would have got the opportunity to participate in the fresh selection process. In view thereof, the observation of the learned Single Judge that no right accrues in favour of Ranjita due to service rendered by the husband of the petitioner on being selected in 1st 7 SLST, 2016 for Classes XI & XII, is not sustainable.

#11. For the reasons as discussed above, the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed in the writ petition being WPA 19282 of 2025 is set aside and the respondent no.2 is directed to issue letter of appointment in favour of Ranjita on the basis of the recommendation issued by the Commission vide memo dated 22.01.2025 positively within a period of four weeks the date of communication of the order.

#12. With the above observations and directions, the appeal and its connected application are disposed of.

#13. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

#14. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)