SHRI.ALOK DAS ARUL PRASANTH vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. — WP.CT/5/2026

Case under Article 226 of Constitution of India Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 13th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: WBCHCP0000882026

Filing Number

WP.CT/5/2026

Filing Date

29-Jan-2026

Registration No

WP.CT/5/2026

Registration Date

29-Jan-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya , Hon'ble Justice Smita Das De

Coram

Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya , Hon'ble Justice Smita Das De

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )

Sub-Category

REINSTATEMENT ( 13 )

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Decision Date

13-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 21-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Article 226 of Constitution of India Section NA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHRI.ALOK DAS ARUL PRASANTH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

  2. 2.THE SECRETARY

  3. 3.THE LT.GOVERNOR

  4. 4.THE CHIEF SECRETARY

  5. 5.THE SECRETARY (EDUCATION)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Apr-2026

    Motion

    Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh , Hon'ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee(das)

  3. 13-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya,hon'ble Justice Smita Das DeView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the writ petition of Shri Alok Das, upholding the termination of his service as a Graduate Trained Teacher (GTT). The court found that Das was ineligible for the GTT position because he lacked three years of continuous service in the same cadre—his prior service as Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) was deemed fundamentally different in nature and could not satisfy the eligibility requirement under the Vacancy Notice. The court also rejected the argument that termination without a disciplinary inquiry violated natural justice, holding that since the dismissal was merely a recall of an ineligible appointment (non-punitive), no prior inquiry was required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 18-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh,hon'ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee(das)View PDF

  5. 18-Mar-2026

    Motion

    Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh , Hon'ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee(das)

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    Motion

    Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh , Hon'ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee(das)

  7. 10-Mar-2026

    Motion

    Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh , Hon'ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee(das)

  8. 09-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh,hon'ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee(das)View PDF

  9. 09-Mar-2026

    Motion

    Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak , Hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta

  10. 23-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak,hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar GuptaView PDF

  11. 23-Feb-2026

    Motion

    Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak , Hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta

  12. 21-Feb-2026

    New Motion

    Hon'ble Justice Arijit Banerjee , Hon'ble Justice Apurba Sinha Ray

  13. 09-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Arijit Banerjee,hon'ble Justice Apurba Sinha RayView PDF

  14. 09-Feb-2026

    New Motion

    Hon'ble Justice Arijit Banerjee , Hon'ble Justice Apurba Sinha Ray

  15. 04-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Arijit Banerjee,hon'ble Justice Apurba Sinha RayView PDF

  16. 04-Feb-2026

    New Motion

    Hon'ble Justice Arijit Banerjee , Hon'ble Justice Apurba Sinha Ray

  17. 02-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  18. 29-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP.CT/5/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the writ petition of Shri Alok Das, upholding the termination of his service as a Graduate Trained Teacher (GTT). The court found that Das was ineligible for the GTT position because he lacked three years of continuous service in the same cadre—his prior service as Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) was deemed fundamentally different in nature and could not satisfy the eligibility requirement under the Vacancy Notice. The court also rejected the argument that termination without a disciplinary inquiry violated natural justice, holding that since the dismissal was merely a recall of an ineligible appointment (non-punitive), no prior inquiry was required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case