Ujjal Kanti Bandyopadhyay & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1529 Cal

23.02.2021
     18
 RP Ct.04
                                       FMA 3351 of 2016

                                Ujjal Kanti Bandyopadhyay & Ors.
                                            Versus
                                  State of West Bengal & Ors.

              Mr. Kallol Bose
              Mr. Subrata Santra
              Mr. Nilanjan Pal
                                                ....        For appellants

              Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya, sr.adv.
              Mr. Bhagbat Chaudhuri
              Mr. Somesh Kumar Ghosh
                                              .... For added respondents

Mr. Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay, Jr. Standing Counsel Mr. Subhendu Sengupta .... For State

Mr. Bose, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellants, who are five in number, of 17 writ petitioners. The writ petition was dismissed by impugned judgment dated 13th March, 2015.

He draws attention to memorandum of understanding between the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India and Government of State of West Bengal, on National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), introduced as an enclosure to letter dated 10 th April, 2006 written by Mission Director of the State to Additional Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Paragraph 3.3 says, each State will prepare a Progromme Implementation Plan (PIP) consistent with general principles laid down in National and State policies relevant to the sector and other agreed plans. He relies on clause (f) in paragraph 11.2 saying State shall take steps for decentralization and promotion of district level planning implementation. He then turns to draft broad framework for preparation of district level action plan of August 2006. He draws attention to the point on innovation in human resources management, to be, inter

alia, ensuring availability of locally resident health workers under heading "Critical Areas for Concerted Action". He draws attention to a table where constraint of non- availability of doctors has been agreed on action to overcome it by local preference. He points out, entry 11 in NRHM Activities and Norms to be that medical officers are to be appointed on contractual basis and local selection criteria to address, inter alia, issue of absenteeism.

He next draws attention to minutes of proceeding held on 1st November, 2012 of selection committee regarding recruitment of medical officer (AYUSH). He submits, decided pattern of scoring, published pursuant thereto, is bad. Pass certificate for graduation is on achieving 50% marks. The pattern for graduate candidates provides for 20 marks to be given to each of them who score less than 50% to 40% and 20 marks to those candidates who score less than 40% to pass. Thereby those who are not graduates, on having failed in the examination, would still be given marks to constitute an aggregate to achieve qualification of 90 marks.

We have ascertained that appellant no.1 is resident of district Bankura, appellant nos.2 and 5 reside in Hooghly, appellant no.3 in South 24 Parganas and appellant no.4 in North 24 Parganas.

Hearing is adjourned.

By consent list on 9th March, 2021.

(Arindam Sinha, J.)

(Suvra Ghosh, J)