Serina Khatun vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 5492 Cal

   D/L
Item No. 03
23.08.2023
 KOLE

                                MAT 951 of 2023
                                     With
                                IA CAN 1 of 2023

                               Serina Khatun
                                    -Vs.-
                       The State of West Bengal & Ors.


              Mr. Golam Mostafa,
              Mr. T. S. Samanta,
              Mr. J. Sardar
                                                           ... for the appellant.

              Mr. Rajarshi Basu,
              Mr. Rupsha Chakraborty,
                                                                 .... For the State.


                      By consent of the parties, the appeal and the

               connected application are taken up for hearing together.

                      A judgment and order dated February 27, 2023,

               whereby the appellant's writ petition being WPA No. 1984 of

               2023 was in effect dismissed, is under challenge in this

               appeal, at the instance of the writ petitioner.

                      The    appellant/writ   petitioner   and      the   private

               respondent had both participated in a selection process for

appointment to the post of Asha in Talgacchi Sub-Center.

The private respondent was declared to be the successful

candidate and was given appointment. Challenging such

appointment the appellant approached the learned Single

Judge contending that on correct evaluation, she would be

seen to have secured more marks than the private

respondent.

The learned Judge called for a report from the

concerned Sub-divisional Officer. Such report was filed.

Having considered such report and having heard learned

Counsel for the parties, the learned Judge came to the

finding that there is no illegality in the appointment of the

private respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition was

disposed of without any orders being passed. Hence this

appeal.

Mr. Mostafa, learned Advocate representing the

appellant/writ petitioner tried to impress upon us that had

the petitioner being allotted two marks that she was entitled

to as she was a member of a self-help group, then the total

marks of the petitioner would have been more than the total

marks secured by the private respondent. However, two

marks were not added to the total marks of the writ

petitioner.

We requested learned Advocate for the appellant to

produce any document to show that as on the date of the

application being made by the writ petitioner and even on

the date of appointment, she was a member of a registered

self-help group. No such document could be produced.

There is a clear finding of the learned Judge that after the

writ petitioner filed application for participating in the

selection process, the self-help group was constituted.

Even otherwise, we find from the report of the Sub-

divisional Officer which was placed before the learned Single

Judge and which has also been placed before us, that the

total marks obtained in the selection process by the

petitioner was 39.72, whereas the private respondent

secured 44.42. Therefore, even if two marks is added to the

total marks of the writ petitioner, still, the marks secured by

the private respondent would be higher than the marks

secured by the appellant/writ petitioner. The report is taken

on record.

In view of the aforesaid, we find no infirmity in the

appointment of the private respondent in the post

concerned. We also find no error in the judgment and order

impugned before us.

Since we have not called for affidavits, the allegations

made in the stay application are deemed not to be admitted

by the respondents.

The appeal and the connected application are,

accordingly, dismissed.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be

supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.

(Arijit Banerjee, J.)

(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)