SHAMIM AKHTAR SK APTABUDDIN vs THE REGISTRAR GENERAL AND ORS. — WPO/102/2025
Case under No Act Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 28th April 2026.
CNR: WBCHCO0005322025
Filing Number
WPO /103/2025
Filing Date
11-02-2025
Registration No
WPO /102/2025
Registration Date
11-02-2025
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )
Sub-Category
Services ( 24 )
Judicial Branch
CURRENT RECORD DEPARTMENT
Decision Date
28th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHAMIM AKHTAR SK APTABUDDIN
Respondent(s)
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL AND ORS.
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA
COURT APPLICATIONS UNDER ART.226
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
FOR HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 13-02-2025 | COURT APPLICATIONS UNDER ART.226 | |
| 28-04-2026 | FOR HEARING | |
| 24-04-2026 | FOR HEARING | |
| 23-04-2026 | FOR HEARING | |
| 22-04-2026 | FOR HEARING |
Orders
Summary: The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the writ petition of Shamim Akhtar, who challenged a recruitment examination answer key for falling one mark short of the 50% qualifying threshold. The court held that the recruitment authority properly considered the petitioner's objection to a disputed logic question (where he answered 8 children instead of the keyed answer of 14), and the Recruitment and Promotion Committee's decision to uphold the answer was duly approved by the Chief Justice. The court found no illegality or arbitrariness in the process and ruled that job aspirants must accept the final decisions of recruiting authorities. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the writ petition of Shamim Akhtar, who challenged a recruitment examination answer key for falling one mark short of the 50% qualifying threshold. The court held that the recruitment authority properly considered the petitioner's objection to a disputed logic question (where he answered 8 children instead of the keyed answer of 14), and the Recruitment and Promotion Committee's decision to uphold the answer was duly approved by the Chief Justice. The court found no illegality or arbitrariness in the process and ruled that job aspirants must accept the final decisions of recruiting authorities. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts