01Facts
The West Bengal Board of Primary Education invited applications for 13,421 Assistant Teacher posts through notifications dated 25 September and 19 November 2025.
¶ 5–6The online application window ran from 19 November to 9 December 2025.
¶ 5–6The petitioner, a TET-qualified OBC candidate residing in a rural village in Purba Medinipur, said he learned of the recruitment only after the deadline and sought permission to apply, either through the online portal or in physical form.
¶ 3–4, 7, 10He relied on a Board notification dated 14 October 2026, which he said showed that the recruitment process remained ongoing.
¶ 8–9The Board responded that the notification allowed only previously registered OBC-A and OBC-B applicants to correct their categories, and that recruitment advertisements had also appeared in newspapers.
¶ 13–15The petitioner’s writ petition sought permission to submit a late application.
¶ 202Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioner could claim a right to submit an application after the stipulated deadline on the ground that he had not learned of the recruitment notification in time.
¶ 7, 19–22ii.2. Whether the Board’s notification of 14 October 2026 permitted fresh applications, or only corrections to applications already submitted.
¶ 8–9, 14–15, 2103Law Applied
No statute, precedent, or specific legal doctrine was expressly cited as the basis of the decision. The recruitment was conducted under the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016, as referred to in the recruitment notifications.
¶ 5, 13The Court applied the terms of the relevant notifications: the 14 October 2026 notification permitted existing applicants to correct or modify particulars, but did not reopen the application process for new applicants.
¶ 21The Court also treated the newspaper advertisements, alongside online publication, as notice to the public at large.
¶ 19–2004Reasoning
The Court found that the recruitment had been publicised both online and through newspaper advertisements, and therefore rejected the petitioner’s claim that he lacked notice because he lived in a rural area.
¶ 19–20It interpreted the 14 October 2026 notification as allowing only applicants who had already applied to correct or rectify their applications, not to submit fresh applications.
¶ 21As the petitioner identified no procedural lapse by the respondents, the Court found no basis to permit a late application.
¶ 2205Holding
The Court held that the petitioner had no legal right to submit an application after the deadline and that the 14 October 2026 notification did not permit fresh applications.
¶ 21It dismissed the writ petition; there was no order as to costs.
¶ 23, 25Original Court PDF
SAMBHU CHARAN BERAvsSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
