✦ Calcutta High Court · 26 Feb 2026

Falguni Mondal v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

7 min read

Case at a glance

Key paragraphs

  • Para 1919. All connected application, if any, stands disposed of.

Judgment

Hence, the prayer of the Petitioner Falguni Mandal is rejected on proper consideration discussion made herein above. The case is thus disposed of. Let this decision be communicated to the petitioner forthwith and all other concerned be informed accordingly”.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the petitioner herein joined and admittedly served in the said college as a 3 lecturer the period

08.09.2011 to 31.01.2015 and as such it is submitted that as she had served prior to the cut of date i.e., 23.12.2019, she was thus qualified to be considered to be enlisted for SACT. It is also stated that she was within the zone of consideration, considering the cut off date.

4.

Learned counsel appearing petitioner has relied upon the memorandum dated 23.12.2019, wherein it has been laid down as follows:

The matter of restructuring of service conditions and other benefits for Government approved Part Time teachers (PTTs). Government approved Contractual Whole teachers (CWTTS) and Guest teacher, in any nomenclature, engaged in different Government/ Government aided colleges in the State of West Bengal up to 13.07.2019, was under active consideration of the State Government for sometimes past

.

5.

In the said order it was further clarified as follows:- “The benefit of this Order shall be allowed to the Part Time Teachers, Contractual Whole Time Teachers and Guest Teachers who were engaged in the college on or before

13.07.2019”.

6.

Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that as the petitioner was admittedly not in service on the cut off date i.e., 13.07.2019, the petitioner did not 4 qualify to be within zone of consideration.

7.

On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record and the memorandum dated

23.1.2019, this Court finds that admittedly the cutoff date was “13.07.2019” to be qualified to be in the zone of consideration.

8.

The clause (Paragraph) as follows:- “The benefit of this Order shall be allowed to the Part Time Teachers, Contractual Whole Time Teachers and Guest Teachers who were engaged in the college on or before

13.07.2019” of the said memorandum dated

23.01.2019 states that the benefit of the order shall be allowed to those category of teachers mentioned therein who were engaged in the college on or before the

13.07.2019. The clause interpreted by the parties differently.

9.

The petitioner herein claims the benefit on the ground that Clause V lays down, that the benefit would also be given to a teacher who were engaged on or before the cut off date. The petitioner having been engaged before the 13.07.2019, thus claims the said benefit.

10.

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submits that the benefit is available to those candidates who have been engaged to/on before

13.07.2019 and have continued to be in service as on 13.07.2019.

11.

It is thus submitted by the respondent, that as admittedly the petitioner did not continue to be in the college from 2015 till

13.07.2019, the petitioner does not come within the zone of consideration. 5

12.

It appears from the impugned order that after 2015, when an interview was held and a panel was prepared in the year 2018, the petitioner did not appear and was thus not engaged in the college for the last three years and as such the details of the petitioner were not uploaded in the portal of the Higher Education Department on the cut-off date i.e., 13.07.2019. The sole ground for rejection of the petitioner‟s prayer is that she was not serving in the college since 2015 and thus also not on the cut-off date i.e., 13.07.2019.

13.

On hearing the parties, the only sentence which comes to the aid of this Court, is line 3 in the memorandum dated

23.12.2019, which notes as follows:- “in any nomenclature, engaged in different Government/ Government aided colleges in the State of West Bengal up to 13.07.2019, was under active consideration of the State Government for sometimes past”.

14.

This said benefit has also been provided at Para 7(V) of the said order:- Part

……….The matter of restructuring of service conditions and other benefits for Government Time approved teachers (PTTs). Government approved Contractual Whole teachers (CWTTs) and Guest teachers, in any nomenclature, engaged in different Government/ colleges in the State of West Bengal up to 13.07.2019, was under active consideration of the State Government for sometimes past……

Government

15.

It further appears that vide the said memo dated 23.12.2019, the Government 6 renamed the category of teachers as follows:- “For the State aided colleges in category 1 and category II and also laid down the remuneration to which the said categories of teachers would be entitled too. Several other clarifications were issued in the said memo. Para I of the said memo being “on the date of issuance of this order” is relevant. The said sentence implies that all the conditions were required to be fulfilled on the date of issuance of the order which came into effect from the date of January, 2020. As such, there has been a change of nomenclature, modification of remuneration etc., and other terms and conditions as noted in the memo, that would be come into effect on the date of issuance of the order, can only be taken to mean that all persons, who were „engaged‟ up to the cut off date, having been appointed on or before the cut-off date would be eligible for consideration.

16.

In the present case, the petitioner served the college from 2011 to 2015. She did not appear for the interview in 2018 to be empanelled and as such was not eligible to be considered/come within the zone of consideration, being admittedly not engaged up to 13.07.2019 (cut off date).

17.

As such, the impugned order dated

30.10.2023 being in accordance with law requires no interference.

18.

WPA 114 of 2024 is dismissed.

19.

All connected application, if any, stands disposed of.

20.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

21.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to 7 parties, expeditiously complying with all necessary formalities. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Calcutta High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments