Calcutta High Court
WPA/23958/2026 of SAHIL ISLAM Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 10 September 2026
23 sdas WPA 23958 of 2026 Sahil Islam Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Md. Sarwar Jahan Mr. Mahendra Nath Sarkar Ms. Shalini Sen Ms. Sahina Parvin ….. for the petitioner Mr. Arka Bhattacharya Ms. Megha Sarkar ….. for the State 1. Let affidavit- of -service, as filed in
10.09.2026
sdas
WPA 23958 of 2026
Sahil Islam
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Md. Sarwar Jahan
Mr. Mahendra Nath Sarkar
Ms. Shalini Sen
Ms. Sahina Parvin
….. for the petitioner
Mr. Arka Bhattacharya
Ms. Megha Sarkar
….. for the State
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Let affidavit-of-service, as filed in Court, be kept on record.
2. The petitioner is a successful candidate in the West Bengal Civil Service (Executive) Examination, 2023.
3. The petitioner had applied under the category of OBC-A, of a sub caste which has been retained even after the order of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court. The sub-caste of the petitioner is “Jolah (Ansari-Momin)”.
4. The petitioner was duly considered and investigated whereupon by the order of August 18, 2026, the Sub Divisional Officer, Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas, upon verification, has not been able to come to a conclusive finding and has stated as “Under these circumstances this office faces practical constraints in conclusively establishing or authenticating the precise caste status of the certificate holder based on local field inputs alone” to the Joint Commissioner for Reservation and Special Secretary, Backward Classes Welfare Department, Government of West Bengal.
5. Respondent no. 5 has been unable to come to a conclusive finding in so far as the petitioner’s caste is concerned. Three issues which seem to have bothered the respondent no. 5 are the occupational discrepancy, nominal discrepancy and sociological factors.
6. Inconclusivity on the part of the authorities cannot be permitted to impede the right of the petitioner.
7. The petitioner has to be given an opportunity to present his case, as presented in this writ petition along with all documents, which have established a fair case in respect of the aforestated three grounds, which the respondent no.
was unable to conclusively decide.
8. In view thereof, I direct the respondent no. 2 to consider this writ petition along with all documents as a representation of the petitioner.
9. Respondent no. 2 will act on a server copy of this order and will give a hearing to the petitioner through his Advocate Mr. Sarwar Jahan, who has represented the petitioner in Court to explain the issues raised in the communication of August 18, 2026.
10. The entire exercise will be completed by September 18, 2026, and a reasoned order will be communicated by September 21, 2026, to the petitioner. If required, the petitioner will be at liberty to disclose further verified documents to expedite the entire process.
11. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the case and no adjournment will be granted for hearing on whichever date it is fixed by the respondent no. 2.
12. With the aforestated directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
13. There will be no order as to costs.
14. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)