SOUMITA CHAKRABORTY DARPAN DUTTA vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. — WPA /29011/2025
Case under West Bengal School Service Commission Act ,1997 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 23rd March 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0588522025
Next Hearing
22nd December 2025
Filing Number
WPA /29093/2025
Filing Date
17-12-2025
Registration No
WPA /29011/2025
Registration Date
17-12-2025
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE REETOBROTO KUMAR MITRA
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE REETOBROTO KUMAR MITRA
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )
Sub-Category
Selection Process 130 ( 1 )
Judicial Branch
MANDAMUS SECTION
Decision Date
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SOUMITA CHAKRABORTY DARPAN DUTTA
Respondent(s)
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE REETOBROTO KUMAR MITRA
NEW MOTION
MOTION 1
MOTION 1
MOTION 1
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 22-12-2025 | NEW MOTION | |
| 01-03-2026 | MOTION 1 | |
| 02-02-2026 | MOTION 1 | |
| 05-01-2026 | MOTION 1 |
Orders
The Calcutta High Court dismissed Soumita Chakraborty's writ petition challenging her disqualification from the SLST 2025 exam due to a form-filling error that cost her 2 marks. The court held that the petitioner's own carelessness caused the mistake and she failed to approach the court promptly (notifying respondents in September but filing the petition only in December), making any corrective order impractical as it would disrupt the entire examination process. The court found no breach of duty by the respondents and ruled that the petitioner cannot be granted a right she did not otherwise possess based on her own error. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed Soumita Chakraborty's writ petition challenging her disqualification from the SLST 2025 exam due to a form-filling error that cost her 2 marks. The court held that the petitioner's own carelessness caused the mistake and she failed to approach the court promptly (notifying respondents in September but filing the petition only in December), making any corrective order impractical as it would disrupt the entire examination process. The court found no breach of duty by the respondents and ruled that the petitioner cannot be granted a right she did not otherwise possess based on her own error. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts