07.09.2026 53 Ct. No.10 Sws.M WPA 27497 of 2025 Mamoni Bibi vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Rabiul Islam Sk. Jayed Hossain Mr. Masooq Rahaman Ms. Asmita Mitra Mr. Raju Mondal …..for the petitioner Mr. Piyush Chaturvedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nikunj Berlia, Ld. AGP Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee ….for the State-respondents Mr. Ramesh Dhara Mr. Gourav Banerji …..for the private respondent 1. In the present writ petition the petitioner challenges the legality and the propriety of the preliminary enquiry dated 4th October, 2024 conducted by the Area Inspector. 2. As per the Eligibility Criteria in the vacancy notice dated 15.05.2024 being Memo. No. 247/SCFS/DOM/2024, the Plinth level ought to have been 1 foot from the road level or ground level, whereas the petitioner’s Plinth level was found to be over and above the specification/measurement prescribed in the said notification. 3. The petitioner further submits that the Area Inspector conducted the preliminary enquiry and found that the Plinth level was not in conformity 2 with the specification mentioned in the Clause 8 (iv) (d) of Part-2 of the vacancy notification and thereby rejected the candidature of the petitioner on this score alone. 4. It is submitted that the entire enquiry was conducted in a very improper manner. The petitioner lodged a complaint with regard to the conduct of the enquiry officer for conducting such preliminary enquiry. 5. Despite such complaint lodged by the petitioner, the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies Domkal/ the respondent No. 8 has not taken it into account for consideration. 6. The petitioner prayed for re-enquiry in respect of the Plinth level as per Clause 8 (iv) (d) of Part-2 of the vacancy notification dated 15.05.2024. 7. The hearing was concluded but till date no decision has been taken. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of rejection suffers from irregularity and arbitrariness and is contrary to principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. The State-respondents strenuously argues and opposes the contentions of the petitioner and submits that the preliminary enquiry conducted by the Area Inspector is in consonance with the 3 mandate of the provisions of the statute. There is no irregularity and/or illegality in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. 10. Having heard the parties and upon considering the materials on records, this Court finds that the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case warranting interference at this stage. The order of rejection is hyper technical, curable and discriminatory being inviolation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Doctrine of proportionality. 11. The respondent No. 8 has already conducted a hearing on 04.06.2025, till date the decision is awaited causing prejudice to the interests of the petitioner. 12. To balance the equities and for ends of justice, this court directs the respondent no. 8 to forthwith cause an independent enquiry by a different officer in presence of the petitioner to arrive at a logical conclusion with regard to the measurement of the Plinth level/ground level as mentioned in Clause 8 (iv) (d) of Part-2 of the vacancy notification, within a period of three weeks from date and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and communicate the same within a week thereafter. 4 13. However, it is made clear that all the points are kept open and the respondent No. 8 shall take an independent decision without being influenced by the observations made in this order. 14. With the above observations and directions the writ petition stands disposed. 15. Since affidavits have not been called for, the allegations made in the instant writ petition are deemed to have been denied and not admitted. 16. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible. (Smita Das De, J.)