Conflicting godown measurements require an independent inquiry before eligibility is finally determined.

The petitioner challenged the rejection order dated 30 October 2025 concerning his candidature, alleging that the godown measurement recorded in that order differed from an earlier measurement taken in his presence.

He stated that no further measurement had been conducted in his presence or after notice to him.

The State’s report indicated that the candidature had been rejected for failure to meet the eligibility criteria in the vacancy notification issued under G.O. No. 1465-FS/Sectt./Food/4P-9/2012 (Pt.III), dated 10 April 2023, and confirmed that no second field inquiry had taken place.

The Court had directed the State to explain the discrepancy and, after considering its report, concluded that a further inquiry into the office-room measurement was required.

Whether the discrepancy between the earlier godown measurement and the measurement relied on in the rejection order warranted a further inquiry.

Whether the petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to participate in that inquiry before a fresh decision on his candidature.

The Court referred to the eligibility criteria in the vacancy notification issued under G.O. No. 1465-FS/Sectt./Food/4P-9/2012 (Pt.III), dated 10 April 2023, as the basis for assessing the petitioner’s candidature.

No statute, precedent, or distinct legal test was cited.

The Court relied on the need for a further inquiry to resolve the measurement discrepancy and directed that the petitioner receive a personal hearing before a reasoned decision was made.

The State’s report did not resolve the discrepancy between the measurements, and it confirmed that no second field inquiry had been conducted.

Because the measurement bore on whether the petitioner met the notification’s eligibility criteria, the Court considered a further inquiry necessary to reach a conclusive decision and to serve the ends of justice.

It therefore directed an independent inquiry by respondent no. 4, assisted by an Amin from the jurisdictional BLLRO, with an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard and a copy of the Amin’s report to be furnished to him.

It directed respondent no. 4 to conduct the inquiry, hear the petitioner, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks of receiving the order; the decision was to be communicated within the following week.

The rejection order was to remain stayed until the fresh decision, but the inquiry or measurement would create no equity in the petitioner’s favour.

No order as to costs was made.