Enamul Hoque v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

S/L 27 27.01.2026 Court No.18 SD

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION WPA 29004 of 2025 Enamul Hoque Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Atis Kumar Biswas Mr. Amit Singh Mrs. Jyoti Agarwal ... for the Petitioner.

Ms. Sipra Mazumder Ms. Prativa Ghatak ... for the State.

Ms. Pramiti Bandopadhyay Mr. Arka Kumar Nag Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh ... for the WBCSSC.

Mr. Bibek Dutta ... for the WBBSE.

1.

Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner in Court today be kept with the records.

2.

The petitioner applied for recruitment under 2nd SLST, 2025 in PH-OH category. December 4, 2020 was the date fixed for document verification.

3.

The petitioner has annexed a discharge summery dated December 10, 2025 issued by a nursing home mentioning that the petitioner was admitted therein on and from December 2, 2025 to December 10, 2025 as he suffered from a stroke. 4.

After being discharged from the nursing home, the petitioner applied before the Commission seeking permission for document verification through email dated December 10, 2025 followed by reminder dated December 14, 2025.

5.

Prayer has been made to direct the Commission to communicate its decision on the request made by the petitioner.

6.

The prayer of the petitioner is opposed by the Commission. The Recruitment Rules relating to the absence of the candidate at the time of document verification has been relied upon. The Rule clearly mentions that absence of a candidate during verification will automatically disqualify the candidate from any further participation in the selection process. 7.

It has been submitted that as the petitioner was absent at the stage of document verification, there is no scope on the part of the Commission to reschedule the date of document verification on the request of the petitioner.

8.

It has further been pointed out that though the petitioner annexed the disability certificate disclosing that he is suffering from locomotor disability, at the time of application the petitioner applied under the category PH-OH, which indicates Physically Handicapped (Other Handicapped).

9.

According to the Commission, Other Handicapped category does not include the category of Locomotor Disability which is an absolute separate category as per the 100-point roster. PH (LD) denotes Physically Handicapped (Locomotor Disability). As the petitioner does not possess any disability certificate

certifying his Other Handicap, his application in the PH-OH category is liable to be rejected.

10.

According to the petitioner, he was no way responsible for his absence. According to him, his physical inability to appear at the time of document verification was an act of God and the petitioner ought to be provided benefit for the same.

11.

Upon hearing the submission made on behalf of both the parties and on perusal the documents annexed to the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner was actually not present at the time of document verification. There may have been genuine reason(s) for his absence. The reason for his absence was not made known to the Commission prior to the date of document verification.

The same was communicated to the Commission only after the entire process of document verification ended.

12.

At this stage, the Court does not think it fit to interfere and direct the Commission to conduct fresh document verification of the petitioner. This is more so because of the reason that the petitioner filled up the application form by not mentioning his physical disability in a proper manner. Vacancy has been declared keeping in mind the roster position passing any order in favour of the petitioner may change the entire panel for recruitment in the subject category. 13.

The writ petition, accordingly, fails and hereby dismissed.

14.

Parties to act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Amrita Sinha, J.)