30.09.2026 Court No.10 DL/Item No.–16 [Milan] WPA 28604 of 2025 ROKY SHAIKH VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Mr. Saptansu Basu, Mr. Ramesh Dhara ….for the Petitioner Ms. Manju Agarwal, Ld. AGP., Ms. Manasi Mukherjee, Ms. Bigitesh Mukherjee ….for the State/Respondent 1. The main grievance of the petitioner is directed against the order of rejection dated 30.10.2025 passed by the respondent no.2, whereby the measurement of the godown as recorded in the impugned order is at variance with the measurement taken earlier in respect of the self same godown in the presence of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner submits that he has no knowledge about the source and basis of the measurement as reflected in the impugned order of rejection in as much as no such measurement was ever taken in his presence nor any notice thereof was given to him. 3. The petitioner prays for a further inquiry to be conducted for the re-measurement of the proposed office room/godown. The said prayer has been vehemently opposed. 2 4. Considering the discrepancy apparent on record, this court directs the state respondents to file a report in the form of an affidavit clarifying the difference between the earlier measurement taken in presence of the petitioner and the measurement recorded in the impugned order of rejection dated 30.10.2025. 5. Pursuant to the order dated 19.01.2026 passed by this Court, a report has been filed on behalf of the State respondent. Upon perusal of the said report, it appears that the candidature of the petitioner’s has been rejected for non-fulfillment of the eligibility criteria as stipulated in the vacancy notification issued under G.O. No.1465-FS/Sectt./Food/4P- 9/2012 (Pt.III) dated–10.04.2023. Admittedly, no second field inquiry was conducted for re- measurement of the proposed godown. 6. This Court is of the view that, for the ends of justice and to arrive at a conclusive finding, a further inquiry is required to be conducted solely with regard to the measurement of the office room. 7. Having heard the parties and upon perusing the materials on record available, this Court finds that the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case and interference is warranted, at this stage. 8. This Court has taken judicial notice of all the relevant documents annexed to the writ petition and 3 upon considering the report filed on behalf of the state respondent, to balance the equities and for the ends of justice, the respondent no.4 is directed to conduct an independent inquiry by himself with regard to the proposed office shop cum shop room of the petitioner with the assistance of an Amin of the jurisdictional Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (BLLRO) Samserganj, for considering the candidature of the petitioner by passing a reasoned and a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order and upon affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Such decision shall be communicated to the petitioner within week thereafter. 9. ..The impugned order of rejection dated 30.10.2025 shall remain stayed till a fresh decision is taken by the respondent no.4. Such measurement/enquiry shall not create any equity in favour of the petitioner. 10. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition being WPA 28604 of 2025 is disposed of accordingly without going into the merits of the case. 11. However, it is made clear that the inquiry report prepared by the Amin in the presence of the petitioner, a copy thereof shall be furnished peremptorily upon petitioner. 12. There will be no order as to costs. 4 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Smita Das De, J.)