‘Equity melts with time’: Calcutta High Court rejects 13-year-old regularisation plea for teachers

Case of regularisation and delay

The appellants, Sanjoy Guchhait and two others, claimed to have served the school continuously since 1993, before its upgradation to a 10-class high school in 1998.

Their legal battle began in 1999, leading to a series of orders. Notably, their claim for appointment approval was rejected by the Principal Secretary of the School Education Department on September 15, 2003.

Despite an inquiry report in 2012 suggesting they were still working at the institution, the appellants did not file the current petition until 2016, thirteen years after the 2003 rejection.

A Single Judge dismissed the petition in October 2025, a decision that was challenged in the present appeal.

Arguments of parties

Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Arabinda Chatterjee, along with Kakali Dutta and Priti Dutta, submitted that singe Judge erroneously rejected the petition on a technical plea because the appellants had not challenged the principal secretary’s September 15, 2003, order.

They added that it had failed to appreciate that the appellants did make a prayer in the petition for cancellation of the orders, directions given by the respondents denying approval of the appointment of the appellants.

Representing the state, assistant government pleader Supriyo Chattopadhyay and advocate Pinaki Bhattacharyya submitted that there was no contemporaneous challenge to the order of the principal secretary dated 15.09.2003, and the petition was filed about four years after an inquiry report was filed on 10.01.2012, responding to a mass petition of unapproved staff of the said school.

They argued that the regularisation cannot be reopened, more so when the appellants have attained the age of about 59, 67, and 64 years respectively as on date.

No explanation for delay: Order

• It is a well-settled position of law that the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary.
• The appellants did not challenge the order passed by the principal secretary on September 15, 2003, and approached the court about 13 years thereafter, placing reliance upon an enquiry report dated January 10, 2012, and that too even four years after such enquiry.
• There is no explanation regarding such a delay.
• A perusal of the order passed on May 13, 2002, in the earlier petition being would reveal that the court arrived at a finding that no statutory legal right of the appellants had been infringed.
• As the circular dated February 24, 1995, did not impose any absolute statutory embargo to accord the approval of the service of the appellants, the matter in the special facts and circumstances was relegated to the principal secretary for consideration.

• Even if it is assumed that the appellants have worked since the year 1993 and till upgradation of the said school in the year 1998, they could not have claimed regularisation.
• Since the state government took a policy decision and promulgated the West Bengal School Service Commission Act with effect from November 1, 1997, mandatorily prescribing inter alia that appointment to the post of a teacher has to be based on the recommendation of the commission.
• In the said conspectus, the question of regularisation of the appellants’ service cannot be reinvigorated, and any order towards regularisation would be an instance of misplaced sympathy, more so when the appellants are presently aged about 59, 67, and 64 years respectively.