Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Anowara Bibi vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 26 April, 2022
26.04.2022
83,84,85
Item no
Aloke/Kaushik MAT 1162 of 2018
with
IA No. CAN 1 of 2020 (Old No. CAN 1561 of 2020)
with
IA No. CAN 2 of 2020 (Old No. CAN 1562 of 2020)
Anowara Bibi
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
WITH
MAT 1163 of 2018
with
IA No. CAN 1 of 2020 (Old No. CAN 1571 of 2020)
with
IA No. CAN 2 of 2020 (Old No. CAN 1572 of 2020)
Lipaka Khatun (Bibi)
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
WITH
MAT 1166 of 2018
with
IA No. CAN 1 of 2020 (Old No. CAN 1563 of 2020)
with
IA No. CAN 2 of 2020 (Old No. CAN 1564 of 2020)
Nur Nahar Khaturi Bibi
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. S.M. Obaidullah, Advocate
Ms. Ankita Dey, Advocate
... ... For the Appellant
Mr. Pinaki Dhole, Advocate
Mr. Avishek Prasad, Advocate
... ...For the State
These three appeals along with connected
applications were assigned to this Bench.
IA No. CAN 2 of 2020 (Old No. CAN 1562 of
2020), IA No. CAN 1 of 2020 (Old No. CAN 1571 of
2020) and IA No. CAN 2 of 2020 (Old No. CAN 1564
2
of 2020) in the three appeals are applications for
condonation of delay. There is a delay of 13 days in
preferring these present appeals.
For the ends of justice the causes shown in
the applications for condonation of delay are
accepted as sufficient and the delay in preferring
the appeals is condoned.
IA No. CAN 2 of 2020 (Old No. CAN 1562 of
2020), IA No. CAN 1 of 2020 (Old No. CAN 1571 of
2020) and IA No. CAN 2 of 2020 (Old No. CAN 1564
of 2020) are accordingly disposed of.
These appeals are taken up for analogous
hearing by consent of the parties..
The appeals are directed against the
judgment and order dated June 14, 2018 passed by
the learned Single Judge in several writ petitions
heard analogously and disposed of.
The present three appeals are at the behest
of the writ petitioners of three of the writ petitions
being WP No. 24346(W) of 2014, WP No. 32268(W)
of 2014 and WP No.32640 (W) of 2014.
By the impugned judgment and order the
learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss all the
writ petitions including the writ petitions of the writ
petitioners who are before the Appeal Court.
The appellants participated in a selections
process for the purpose of appointment to the post
of Anganwadi Helpers (AWH) under Sitai ICDS
Project within the District of Cooch Behar. The
advertisements in respect of the selection process
was published on June 18, 2007. The appellants
were empanelled in the selection process. However,
the appellants did not receive any employment. In
2010, 53 empanelled candidates filed a writ petition
3
being WP No. 10402(W) of 2010 (Smt. Nirupama
(Roy) Barman & Ors. vs. The State of West Begnal
& Ors.). Such writ petition was dismissed by a
judgment and order dated October 3, 2012 passed
by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 10402(W) of
2010. An appeal being FMA No. 101 of 2013 was
preferred therefore which was disposed of by a
judgment and order dated March 22, 2013. By such
judgment and order dated March 22, 2013, the
Hon'ble Appeal Court, set aside the decision of the
learned Single Judge. The Hon'ble Appeal Court
directed the authorities to consider the claim of the
appellants before their Lordships for appointment to
the post of Anganwadi Helpers (AWH) against the
vacancies which occurred during the validity period
of the advertisement in question on or before the
September 22, 2010 without any further delay but
positively within a period of four weeks from the
date of communication of that order. Some of the
other empanelled candidates of such selection
process filed five several writ petitions being WP No.
24346(W) of 2014, WP No. 24350(W) of 2014, WP
No. 32640 (W) of 2014, WP No. 32268 (W) of 2014
and WP No. 24349(W) of 2014. Such five several
writ petitions were decided by the judgment and
order dated June 14, 2018.
The principal contention of such writ
petitioners, was that, since the Hon'ble Appeal Court
by the judgment and order dated March 22, 2013
directed the respondent authorities to grant
appointment to the writ petitioners therein, the
petitioners should also be given appointment.
The State opposed the prayer of the writ
petitioners.
By the impugned judgment and order dated
June 14, 2018 the learned Single Judge was pleased
to dismiss the writ petitions. The learned Single
Judge held that the writ petitioners were fence
sitters who finally decided to file the writ petitions in
2014 seeking benefit of the judgment and order of
the Hon'ble Division Bench dated March 22, 2013.
At the hearing of the present appeals, the learned
Advocate for the appellants did not add any other
ground than what was canvassed before the learned
Single Judge on behalf of the appellants, that is to
say that,the appellants should also be considered
for appointment in view of the judgment and order
of the appeal Court dated March 22,2013.
In the facts of the present case, the selection
process was initiated in 2007.
There is no dispute that the validity of the
panel was for a period of two years and after expiry
of the initial period of two years the life of the panel
was extended for a further period of one year. That
the panel was valid till September 22, 2009 is
undisputed. The initial writ petition which gave rise
to the judgment and order of the Appeal Court
dated March 22, 2013 was filed in 2010 after expiry
of the validity period of the panel. The Appeal Court
by the judgment and order dated March 22, 2013
directed the appellant before their Lordships for
appointment to the vacant posts. The present
appellants were not before the Writ Court of the
Appeal Court at that material point of time. The
present appellants approached this Hon'ble Court in
2014, by way of writ petitioners, almost a year after
the judgment and order dated March 22, 2013 of
the Appeal Court and after a period of almost five
years from the date of expiry of the validity period
of the panel, for relief.
At the highest the appellants were
empaneled candidates in a selection process. As
empaneled candidates no justiciable right accrued in
favour of the appellants to invoke the provisions of
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Life span of
a panel is in the domain of the employees. Its life
span cannot be enlarged by a writ Court. Moreover,
the appellants never canvassed any of their so
called rights till after five years of the expiry of the
life of the panel.
There is no material irregularity in the
impugned judgment and order warranting an
interference by the Appeal Court. Consequently, we
find no merit in the present appeal.
All the appeals and the connected
applications for stay are dismissed without any
order as to costs.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
(Bivash Ranjan De, J.)
