Manika Tripathy (Das) vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2949 Cal

                                     W.P.A. 26148 of 2015
89    18.05.2022
rkd   Ct.15
                                      Manika Tripathy (Das)
                                              -vs-
                                 The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                   Mr. Amal Baran Chatterjee,
                   Ms. Renuka Roy
                                                              ....for the petitioner.
                   Mr. Santanu Kumar Mitra,
                   Mr. Mirza Kamaluddin
                                                                  ....for the State.


                            In this writ petition challenge has been

                   thrown to the order dated 29th March, 2012 issued

                   by    the      Child   Development         Project    Officer,

                   Narayangarh I.C.D.S. Project, District- Paschim

                   Medinipur, being the respondent no.2. Vide order

dated 29th March, 2012 petitioner has been

dismissed from her engagement as Anganwadi

Karmee.

Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior advocate

appears on behalf of the petitioner and submits on

placing reliance on the employment notification

dated 16th October, 2006 issued by the respondent

no.2 that requisite educational qualification for the

said post of Anganwadi Karmee is school final pass

and the petitioner is having such requisite

qualification.

It has also been submitted that though

there was a stipulation in the said employment

notification dated 16th October, 2006 that if the

candidate was possessing higher qualification that

was required to be disclosed at the time of offering

candidature but non-disclosure of higher

qualification ought not to be considered as fatal

which may take away the employment of the

petitioner.

Petitioner pursuant to said employment

notification offered her candidature but while

making such application she did not disclose her

higher qualification since petitioner was graduate

at the material point of time.

On the basis of the selection made by the

concerned respondent authorities petitioner was

selected and appointment letter was issued on 18th

November, 2008 whereby she was engaged as

Anganwadi Karmee. Subsequently, the respondent

no.2 issued a show cause notice dated 21st

December, 2011 addressed to the petitioner based

on a complaint lodged by one Sanjay Das asking

why necessary steps shall not be taken against her,

since it has been found on the basis of

communication made by the Belda College

Authorities that the petitioner obtained graduation

degree in 1982 from the said college. Based on

such show cause notice ultimately petitioner has

been terminated vide letter dated 29th March, 2012

on the ground that petitioner was having

graduation degree at the time of making application

before the concerned respondent authority for her

engagement as Anganwadi Karmee which she did

suppress while offering her candidature.

On behalf of the petitioner, it has been

submitted that employment notification dated 16th

October, 2006 does not impose any express bar in

engaging graduate candidate as Anganwadi Karmee

save and except there was requirement to declare

and disclose higher qualification of the candidate.

In support of such contention reliance has

been placed on one unreported judgment of the

Hon'ble Division Bench dated 6th August, 2015

passed in FMA 3462 of 2013 (Smt. Shyamali

Bankura (Makar) -vs- The State of West Bengal &

Ors.) wherein the Division Bench has made

following observations:-

                         In       the     present           case,
                         undisputedly                        the
                         appellant/petitioner         did    not
                         enjoy any benefit for the higher
                         academic       qualification        and
                         therefore, we are of the view
                         that            the                said

appellant/petitioner should not be punished for the aforesaid

higher academic qualification.

There is no doubt that specific
prohibition          in      respect         of
graduate        candidates                was
mentioned in the advertisement
following            the          prevalent

guidelines of the authorities but the State and its authorities should justify the reasonableness of the aforesaid restrictions. The State respondents did not furnish any ground to justify the prohibition imposed on the graduate candidates. The State respondent failed to justify the necessity of the aforesaid restrictions mentioned in the guidelines as well as in the advertisement.

One       Bharati         Ghorai,     whose
service     was also terminated
along                with                  the

appellant/petitioner herein by the aforesaid Memo No.202(5) dated 24th June, 2003, also filed a writ petition challenging the order of termination before this Court and a learned Judge of this Court by the judgment and order dated 4th April, 2014 passed in W.P. 12270(W) of 2003 set aside and quashed the said order of termination

and allowed the writ petition."

Another judgment of the Special Bench has

also been relied upon on behalf of the petitioner

reported in (2010) 3 CAL LT 232 (Rina Dutta &

Ors.-vs- Anjali Mahato & Ors.).

On perusal of the observations of the

Hon'ble Division Bench as contained in Shyamali

Bankura (supra), it appears that another

unreported judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench

passed in FMA 288 of 2015 (State of West Bengal &

Ors. -vs- Bharati Ghorai & Ors.) was relied upon

while deciding the appeal being FMA 3462 of 2013.

From the said judgement of Bharati Ghorai (supra)

as it has been quoted by the Hon'ble Division

Bench in the judgement of Shyamali Bankura

(supra), it appears that there was subsequent

modification of guidelines relating to higher

qualification of Anganwadi Workers by the State

Government and the State Government by such

modification made it clear that all the graduate and

higher qualified candidates would be eligible for the

post of Anganwadi Workers. It was also quoted

therein that the State Government realized that the

restrictions imposed earlier were unreasonable and

therefore subsequently modified the same by

declaring that all the graduate and higher qualified

candidates would be eligible for the post of

Anganwadi Workers. Upon placing reliance on this

part of the judgment Mr. Chatterjee has submitted

that such modified guidelines would come in aid of

the petitioner had there been due consideration by

the respondent no.2 before taking decision with

regard to service of the petitioner which has not

been done in the present case.

Mr. Mitra, learned advocate appears on

behalf of the respondent authorities and has

defended the order of termination dated 29th

March, 2012. It is contended on behalf of the

respondents that there was specific stipulation in

the employment notification dated 16th October,

2006 to the extent that graduate female candidate

was not permitted to make application for

engagement of Anganwadi Karmee/Sahayika. It is

also submitted that by furnishing affidavit

petitioner suppressed her graduate qualification

while offering her candidature for being appraised

for engagement of the Anganwadi Karmee.

Therefore, there is no flaw in the decision as

contained in the impugned letter of termination

dated 29th March, 2012 passed by the respondent

no.2.

This Court has heard the submissions

made on behalf of the rival parties to this writ

petition and perused the relevant materials

available on record. It appears that based on the

selection process conducted by the respondent

authority pursuant to employment notification

dated 16th October, 2006 petitioner was selected for

the post of Anganwadi Karmee and she was

appointed vide appointment letter dated 18th

November, 2008. Suddenly, based on one

complaint lodged by one Sanjay Das a show cause

notice was issued on 21st December, 2011 against

the petitioner and subsequently impugned letter of

termination dated 29th March, 2012 was issued

thereby petitioner was terminated from the post of

Anganwadi Karmee.

Taking cue from the submission made on

behalf of the petitioner with regard to non-

consideration of modified guidelines promulgated

by the concerned respondent authorities in the

matter of engagement of Anganwadi Workers at the

time of taking decision to terminate the petitioner,

this Court finds it fit to direct the Director,

Integrated Child Development Scheme (I.C.D.S.),

being the additional respondent to revisit the issue

whether the petitioner will be permitted to continue

her service as Anganwadi Karmee based on the

selection made pursuant to the employment

notification dated 16th October, 2006 since there

was modified guidelines relating to eligibility of the

candidates in terms of educational qualification as

referred to in the judgement of the Hon'ble Division

Bench dated 6th August, 2015 in Shyamali

Bankura (supra).

The Director, Integrated Child Development

Scheme (I.C.D.S.), is directed to take decision

afresh after granting opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner or her representative within a period of

eight weeks from the date of communication of this

order.

At the time of hearing petitioner shall be at

liberty to rely upon such modified scheme relating

to engagement of Anganwadi Karmee and the

decisions of the Hon'ble High Court. The reasoned

decision to be taken by the Director, Integrated

Child Development Scheme (I.C.D.S.), shall be

communicated to the petitioner within a period of

one week thereafter.

Till such decision to be taken by the

Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme

(I.C.D.S.), in terms of the direction passed by this

Court today the impugned order of termination

dated 29th March, 2012 shall be kept in abeyance

and shall abide by the decision to be taken by the

Director.

The advocate-on-record of the petitioner is

granted leave to amend the cause title of the writ

petition by adding Director, Integrated Child

Development Scheme (I.C.D.S), as additional

respondent.

With the above direction, the writ petition

stands disposed of.

However, there shall be no order as to

costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of the order,

if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual

undertakings.

(Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.)