- (1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and/or order dated 22nd February, 2012 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge. The Hon'ble Single Judge after hearing the parties was pleased to allow the writ petition with a direction that :-- Since the petitioner's name still continues to remain in first place of the panel of the recommended candidates, which has not been quashed by any authority or this Court as yet. I am of the view that unless the petitioner suffers from some fundamental disqualification, such recommendation ought to be given effect to. As regards doubt expressed by the Director (DDPS) on the loading and unloading capacity as well as access road of the godown of the petitioner, I am of opinion that the Sub-Divisional Controller may enquire into these two aspects in respect of the petitioner. If he finds that the petitioner has sufficient loading and unloading capacity and adequate access space to his godown, then effect shall be given to the recommendation made by the District Controller. This exercise shall be completed within a period of ten weeks from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition stands allowed with the above direction. The facts of the case briefly are as follows:-- The grievances of the writ petitioner in the writ petition is in respect of an appointment of a distributor under the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003 at Assam More in the district of Jalpaiguri. The writ petitioner was one of the contenders for being engaged as a distributor in respect of the said vacancy. It appears that the Sub-divisional Controller and the Controller had found him eligible for such appointment among the contending candidates. Report was filed on 10th October, 2006 by the Sub-Divisional Controller. Food and Supplies, Jalpaiguri after preparing a panel in order of merit and the name of the writ petitioner was in the first position in that panel. The said recommendation was concurred with by the District Controller, and thereafter the matter was re-examined and the Deputy Director (Supply) wanted to reassess the status of the respective parties. It was observed that a note was prepared by the Director. DDP & S wherefrom it appears that no specific recommendation in respect of a particular candidate was made and re-enquiry in the matter to be conducted by a Senior Deputy Director, Habibul Ahsan. The said report was prepared by him along with the assistance of another officer, one Asim Bose.
(2.) The said report was challenged by the writ petitioner before the Court (W.P. No. 45 of 2007) when the Hon'ble Single Judge was pleased to set aside the said report on the ground that although direction was on a particular officer to make the enquiry, the enquiry had in effect being made by a team. The said order of the Hon'ble Single Judge was sustained by the Division Bench in A.P.O. No. 54 of 2011 by a judgment and/or order dated 19th May, 2011. In these circumstances, a memorandum was issued bearing No. 4181/FMR/13L-16/05 dated 27th October. 2011. The said memorandum was challenged before the Hon'ble Single Judge. According to the writ petitioner there was no occasion to cause fresh verification made by the Sub-divisional Controller as his recommendation was confirmed by the District Controller. According to the writ petitioner in absence of any disagreement between these two functionaries a fresh verification by the Sub-divisional Controller was unwarranted.
(3.) It is further case of the writ petitioner that the report of the Deputy Director having been quashed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in the earlier proceeding, the recommendation in favour of the petitioner subsists and there was no occasion to direct fresh verification to be conducted by the Sub-divisional Controller.;