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

CASE DISPOSED

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

NO ACT Section NA

Petitioner(s)

SHAMIM AKHTAR SK APTABUDDIN

Respondent(s)

THE REGISTRAR GENERAL AND ORS.

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA

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

28-04-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

Search Another Case