76 07.04. 2026 Ct. No. 24 Ab IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE. WPA 27943 of 2025 Md. Bodiozzaman Vs. The State of West Bengal and others. --------------- Mr. Srikanta Dutta. … for the petitioner. Ms. Sipra Majumder, Ms. Prativa Ghatak. … for the State. 1. The affidavit of service filed today is taken on record. 2. The petitioner’s grievance centers around a reasoned order passed by the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) on January 21, 2021. The petitioner was blessed with an order of this Court sometime in 2003, directing the concerned authorities to regularize the service of the petitioner from 2001 being the recognition of the said school where the petitioner was serving as Assistant Teacher. 3. Pursuant to the order of 2003, a memo was issued sometime in 2007, which the petitioner has availed, though subsequently challenged the same as the regularization was made from the date of the order in 2003 and not from the date of recognition of the 2 school in 2001. 4. The concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) was directed by an order of this Hon’ble Court to consider the matter and dispose of the same with a reasoned order. This reasoned order is what has been assailed in this writ petition, at a rather belated stage. This order was passed sometime in January 2021 and the present writ petition has been filed only in December 2025, almost after five years of passing of the order. 5. A bare perusal of the order reflects that the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE) had not considered the directions contained in the order of 2003 and the rejection of the petitioner’s case has been done in a mechanical manner without application of mind. 6. Ms. Ghatak, learned Advocate appearing for the State respondents, vehemently opposes such prayer. She submits that the order is well reasoned and the petitioner has approached this Court after a long delay of five years. 7. In view of the afore-stated, the order, which is clearly bereft of any reasoning, is set aside. 8. I direct the concerned District Inspector of Schools (SE), being the respondent no. 3, to consider the case of the petitioner by May 30, 2026. 9. I make it clear that this order will not create any 3 equity in favour of the petitioner nor any right, unless he otherwise has such right. 10. With the afore-stated direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. 11. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 12. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)