YOGESH TAMANG AND ORS vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS — WPA/691/2026

Case under West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act ,1963 Section N/A. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: WBCHCJ0015582026

Filing Number

WPA/626/2026

Filing Date

10-Apr-2026

Registration No

WPA/691/2026

Registration Date

07-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak

Coram

Hon'ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )

Sub-Category

Miscellaneous ( 6 )

Judicial Branch

MANDAMUS SECTION

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act ,1963 Section N/A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.YOGESH TAMANG AND ORS

    Adv. Sk. Imtiaj Uddin

  2. 2.CHELBI TAMANG

  3. 3.GANGA RAI

  4. 4.ANMOL RAI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 09-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Bivas PattanayakView PDF

    Case Summary: WPA 691/2026 The High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench, Jalpaiguri) adjourned the matter to 17th June 2026. The petition concerns the legality of teaching and non-teaching staff appointments. While petitioners argued the issue was already decided by coordinate benches with staff subsequently regularized, the State contends the appointments are illegal, citing divergent judicial views. The Advocate General requested accommodation to argue the matter further on the returnable date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-May-2026

    New Motion

    Hon'ble Justice Aniruddha Roy

  4. 10-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPA/691/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WPA 691/2026 The High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench, Jalpaiguri) adjourned the matter to 17th June 2026. The petition concerns the legality of teaching and non-teaching staff appointments. While petitioners argued the issue was already decided by coordinate benches with staff subsequently regularized, the State contends the appointments are illegal, citing divergent judicial views. The Advocate General requested accommodation to argue the matter further on the returnable date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case