Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Shyamali Patradhar (Bauri) vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 June, 2022
D/L
Item No. 34
07.06.2022
KOLE
FMA 1304 of 2016
With
IA No. CAN 1 of 2012 (Old No. 7729 of 2012)
Shyamali Patradhar (Bauri)
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mrs. Chandrayei Alam,
Mrs. R. Mukherjee,
... for the appellant.
Mr. Chandi Charan De,
Mr. S. Bandyopadhyay,
Mr. A. Sen,
... for the State.
By consent of the parties the appeal and the
application are taken up for hearing together.
A judgment and order dated July 10, 2022, whereby
WP No. 1231 (W) of 2012 was dismissed with costs assessed
at 200 gms, is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
The appellant/writ petitioner was appointed in the
post of Anganwari Sahayika under the Child Development
Project Officer, Labhpur, Birbhum by issuance of an
appointment letter dated November 29, 2007. She joined
the post on November 30, 2007. Her grievance before the
learned Single Judge was that the Project Officer
subsequently took away her original appointment letter and
did not permit her to resume her duties. According to her,
she was a scheduled caste candidate and was appointed to
the post in question on such basis.
2
On behalf of the State, it was argued that neither on
the date of appointment nor on the date of issuance of her
appointment letter the writ petitioner possessed any
scheduled caste certificate. The applicable rules and
guidelines required production of scheduled caste certificate
from specified authorities along with the application. Since
she did not produce any such certificate either on the date of
interview or even prior to issuance of appointment letter in
her favour, the Project Officer was justified in taking away
the appointment letter and not allowing her to work any
further.
The learned Judge accepted the contention of the
State. The learned Judge observed that on her own
admission, the writ petitioner obtained the scheduled caste
certificate on June 23, 2008. Hence, she could not have
produced such certificate in November, 2007, when she
applied for the job, or on the date of her interview on
November 26, 2007. The Learned Judge accordingly
dismissed the writ petition.
Learned Advocate for the appellant/writ petitioner
argued before us that the writ petitioner belongs to a
scheduled caste by birth. It was not that a certificate from a
specified authority would make her a member of a scheduled
caste. She did produce documents with her application
which showed that she was awarded scholarship on the basis
that she belongs to a scheduled caste. Further, albeit
subsequently, she did produce the scheduled caste certificate
when she obtained it. It was extremely unfair on the part of
3
the Project Officer to throw her out unceremoniously
without granting her an opportunity of hearing.
Learned Advocate for the State has argued the same
points as were urged before the learned Single Judge. Our
attention has been drawn to the advertisement which is at
page 18 of the paper book. The relevant clause required
production of a scheduled caste certificate from either the
relevant District Magistrate or the relevant Sub-divisional
Officer along with the application. Relying on this clause,
learned Advocate for the State submitted that since such
certificate was not produced along with the application, the
appointment of the writ petitioner was irregular and
accordingly the Project Officer was justified in doing what he
did.
We have considered the rival contentions of the
parties. It is true that the relevant clause in the
advertisement required a candidate to submit along with the
application, a scheduled caste certificate issued by the
District Magistrate or the Sub-divisional Officer. It is also
true that as on the date of the application such certificate
was not available with the writ petitioner. However, the fact
remains that the writ petitioner was called for interview on
the basis of the documents she submitted and was
subsequently appointed as an Anganwari worker. It is not
the case that the writ petitioner concealed anything or
produced any fake document. If the authorities appointed
her with open eyes and with full knowledge that she had not
been able to produce a scheduled caste certificate from the
4
District Magistrate or the Sub-divisional Officer, in all
fairness, the authorities should have at least granted her an
opportunity of hearing before throwing her out from the job.
We are of the considered view that the authorities
acted in breach of the principles of natural justice. We
remand the matter to The Child Development Project
Officer, Labpur, being the respondent no. 4, for
reconsideration of the writ petitioner's case. It is common
knowledge that service of Anganwari workers are required
extensively for the ICDS projects. If there is vacancy in the
relevant project, we would expect the respondent no. 4 to
consider the case of the writ petitioner sympathetically,
particularly in view of the fact that there is no dispute now
that she belongs to a scheduled caste. The respondent no. 4
shall take a reasoned decision in the matter in accordance
with law within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order after giving an opportunity of
hearing to the appellant/writ petitioner or her authorized
representatives. The decision to be taken by the respondent
no. 4 shall be communicated to the writ petitioner within a
week from the date of the decision.
We have not gone into the merits of the claim of the
appellant. The respondent no. 4 shall take an informed
decision in the matter in accordance with law and in the light
of the observations made in this appeal.
The order under appeal is set aside.
The appeal and the connected application are,
accordingly, disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be
supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.
(Arijit Banerjee, J.)
(Subhendu Samanta, J.)
