Chandan Gupta vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation And … on 26 August, 2025

Calcutta High Court

Chandan Gupta vs The Kolkata Municipal Corporation And … on 26 August, 2025

Author: Ravi Krishan Kapur

Bench: Ravi Krishan Kapur

OIPD-24

                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                               ORIGINAL SIDE
                          (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)

                                 WPO/520/2025

                          CHANDAN GUPTA
                                 VS
             THE KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS


  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
  Date : 26th August, 2025.
                                                                         Appearance:
                                                     Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty, Adv.
                                                                  Ms. Amrita De, Adv.
                                                            Mr. Sabnan Sultana, Adv.
                                                                   ...for the petitioner

                                                                Mr. Aloke Ghosh, Adv.
                                                                ...for the respondents

The Court: Supplementary Affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner be

kept with the records.

The grievance of the petitioner is directed against a gradation list for the

post of Assistant Engineers dated 5th July, 2021. The petitioner inter-alia seeks

reliefs in respect of the above gradation list and for recasting and setting aside

and for creation of a fresh gradation list.

In view of the urgency, the matter is taken up for hearing.

Upon a perusal of the record it appears that this writ petition has been

actuated in view of the decision passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this

Court in APOT/183/2024 (Ashoke Kumar Roy & Ors. vs. Prasenjit Roy & Ors).

By the impugned judgment the Hon’ble Division Bench had found no fault with

the impugned gradation list published on 5th July, 2021 read along with the
2

resolution adopted by the Board of the Administrators of KMC at its meeting

dated 29th June, 2021.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned

communication dated 14th January 2025 is contrary to law, illegal and perverse

and is liable to be set aside. In support of such contention the petitioner relies

on the decisions in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava &

Ors. (2015) 1 SCC 347 para 22.3 and Pohla Singh alias Pohla Ram (D) by LRS &

Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 126 para 18.1and 19.

On behalf of the respondent Corporation, it is submitted that the

impugned order has been issued as a consequence of the above decision of the

Hon’ble Division Bench. In any event, the instant writ petition is not

maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

Prima facie, there is no scope for passing any ad interim order of

restraint at this stage of the proceedings. The fact that the writ petitioner was

not eo nomine a party to the judgment dated 25th February, 2025 passed by the

Hon’ble Division Bench is not a reason as to why the respondent Corporation

should not implement the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench.

It is submitted on behalf of the respondent Corporation that the

impugned order had been passed in conformity with the decision of the Hon’ble

Division Bench and having failed in repeated attempts both directly and

indirectly to set aside the order of the Division Bench, the writ petitioner now

taken a circuitous route by filing this writ petition.
3

In view of the above, there is no prima facie case nor balance of

convenience nor equity which would warrant any interim order being passed at

this stage of this proceeding.

In view of the prayer made on behalf of the respondent Corporation the

parties are directed to exchange affidavits.

Let Affidavit-in-Opposition be filed within two weeks from date. Reply, if

any, by one week thereafter.

Liberty is granted to the parties to mention this matter before the

Regular Bench after completion of affidavits.

(RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.)

S.Bag