DR. SABEELA BANU CHENBEN G.BINNU KUMAR, VINITA DEVI vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. — WP.CT/54/2025

Case under Article 226 of Constitution of India Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 27th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: WBCHCP0009812025

Filing Number

WP.CT/54/2025

Filing Date

21-Nov-2025

Registration No

WP.CT/54/2025

Registration Date

21-Nov-2025

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

Miscellaneous ( 16 )

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Decision Date

27-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.DR. SABEELA BANU CHENBEN G.BINNU KUMAR, VINITA DEVI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

  2. 2.THE UNION PUBIC SERVICE COMMISSION

  3. 3.THE LT.GOVERNOR

  4. 4.THE CHIEF SECRETARY

  5. 5.THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HEALTH)

  6. 6.THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-Apr-2026

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

    Summary The High Court at Calcutta dismissed three writ petitions by medical officers seeking regularisation of their ad hoc service from their initial appointment date. The court held that the regularisation issue was conclusively decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal in 2004 and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2012, barring fresh litigation under the doctrine of res judicata. The petitioners, who were excluded from regularisation due to limited vacancies (12 positions for 15 candidates), later obtained regular appointments under the 1997 Recruitment Rules in 2016; the court found they cannot now claim regularisation of earlier ad hoc service across different recruitment rule regimes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 20-Apr-2026

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

  4. 20-Apr-2026

    To Be Mentioned

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

  5. 17-Apr-2026

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

  6. 17-Apr-2026

    Motion

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

  7. 16-Apr-2026

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

  8. 16-Apr-2026

    Motion

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

  9. 13-Apr-2026

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

  10. 12-Mar-2026

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

  11. 12-Mar-2026

    Motion

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

  12. 11-Mar-2026

    Motion

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

  13. 10-Mar-2026

    Motion

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

  14. 09-Mar-2026

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

  15. 09-Mar-2026

    Motion

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

  16. 09-Mar-2026

    Motion

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

  17. 25-Feb-2026

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

  18. 25-Feb-2026

    Motion

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

  19. 27-Jan-2026

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

  20. 27-Jan-2026

    Motion

    Hon'ble Justice Arindam Mukherjee , Hon'ble Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma

  21. 13-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Arindam Mukherjee,hon'ble Justice Dinesh Kumar SharmaView PDF

  22. 13-Jan-2026

    Motion

    Hon'ble Justice Arindam Mukherjee , Hon'ble Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma

  23. 05-Jan-2026

    Motion

    Hon'ble Justice Arindam Mukherjee , Hon'ble Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma

  24. 02-Jan-2026

    Motion

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya , Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

  25. 17-Dec-2025

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya,hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)View PDF

  26. 17-Dec-2025

    Motion

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya , Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

  27. 15-Dec-2025

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya,hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)View PDF

  28. 15-Dec-2025

    Motion

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya , Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

  29. 12-Dec-2025

    Motion

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya , Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

  30. 11-Dec-2025

    Motion

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya , Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

  31. 10-Dec-2025

    Motion

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya , Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

  32. 09-Dec-2025

    Motion

    Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya , Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

  33. 08-Dec-2025

    New Motion

    Hon'ble Justice Lanusungkum Jamir , Hon'ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay

  34. 24-Nov-2025

    Hon'ble Justice Lanusungkum Jamir,hon'ble Justice Rai ChattopadhyayView PDF

  35. 24-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  36. 21-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP.CT/54/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The High Court at Calcutta dismissed three writ petitions by medical officers seeking regularisation of their ad hoc service from their initial appointment date. The court held that the regularisation issue was conclusively decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal in 2004 and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2012, barring fresh litigation under the doctrine of res judicata. The petitioners, who were excluded from regularisation due to limited vacancies (12 positions for 15 candidates), later obtained regular appointments under the 1997 Recruitment Rules in 2016; the court found they cannot now claim regularisation of earlier ad hoc service across different recruitment rule regimes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case