DHANAPATI ROY AND ANR. SAYAN MUKHERJEE vs THE CHAIRMAN, STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ORS. — WPA /10921/2025
Case under West Bengal Staff Selection Commission Act ,2011 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 23rd March 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0217512025
Next Hearing
19th May 2025
Filing Number
WPA /10618/2025
Filing Date
08-05-2025
Registration No
WPA /10921/2025
Registration Date
14-05-2025
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )
Sub-Category
APPOINTMENT ( 4 )
Judicial Branch
MANDAMUS SECTION
Decision Date
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DHANAPATI ROY AND ANR. SAYAN MUKHERJEE
Respondent(s)
THE CHAIRMAN, STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ORS.
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA
NEW MOTION
MOTION
MOTION
MOTION
MOTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 19-05-2025 | NEW MOTION | |
| 23-03-2026 | MOTION | |
| 01-03-2026 | MOTION | |
| 02-03-2026 | MOTION | |
| 02-03-2026 | MOTION |
Orders
The Calcutta High Court directed the Staff Selection Commission to appoint petitioners Dhanapati Roy and others as Constables (GD) in CAPF within eight weeks, despite a pending appeal by the authority, as the petitioners had successfully cleared all examination stages and were being unlawfully deprived of salary and seniority. The appointment was conditional on the outcome of the appeal (MAT 1691 of 2025), but the Court found that indefinite withholding of appointment merely due to appeal pendency was unjustifiable, especially after more than a year without hearing the appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Calcutta High Court directed the Staff Selection Commission to appoint petitioners Dhanapati Roy and others as Constables (GD) in CAPF within eight weeks, despite a pending appeal by the authority, as the petitioners had successfully cleared all examination stages and were being unlawfully deprived of salary and seniority. The appointment was conditional on the outcome of the appeal (MAT 1691 of 2025), but the Court found that indefinite withholding of appointment merely due to appeal pendency was unjustifiable, especially after more than a year without hearing the appeal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts