Rajlaxmi Pradhan (Pal) vs Sudeshna Maity (Sashmal)
2023 Latest Caselaw 4483 Cal

   D/L
Item No 53
25.07.2023
 KOLE
                              FMA 3538 of 2013
                                  With
                            IA No. CAN 3 of 2022

                         Rajlaxmi Pradhan (Pal)
                                 -Vs.-
                        Sudeshna Maity (Sashmal)


             Mr. Jayanta Kumar Das,
             Mr. Gourav Das,
             Ms. M. Das,
                                                         ... for the appellant.

             Mr. Sankar Prasad Dalapati,
             Mr. S. Dewan,
                                                 ... for the respondent no. 1.

By consent of the parties the appeal and the

connected application are taken up for hearing together.

This appeal is directed against a judgment and order

dated February 6, 2012, passed by a learned Single Judge in

WP No. 11695 (W) of 2010, being a writ petition filed by the

respondent no. 1 in this appeal. The appellant was the

private respondent in the writ petition.

The writ petitioner approached the learned Single

Judge challenging a selection process and appointment of

the appellant herein as Asha Worker on Gokulpur Gram

Panchayat in Purba Medinipur. The learned Judge was

persuaded by the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner

should have been placed higher in the panel compared to the

private respondent and accordingly, the panel requires to be

reconstructed since the writ petitioner had obtained more

marks on an aggregate in the selection process compared to

the private respondent. The learned Judge disposed of the

writ petition with the following directions:-

"In such facts and circumstances as stated above, this writ petition is allowed and the panel prepared for the post-in-question by the Gokulpur Gram Panchayat based on the interview dated 25th April, 2010, stands quashed. The respondent no. 6, being the Block Medical Officer of Health, Gonara, BPHC, Purba Medinipur, shall take steps to direct the respondent no. 7 to prepare a fresh panel based on the observations made hereinabove and send the same to the said respondent no. 6 for grant of approval in accordance with law. Needless to mention, if any appointment has been given to the private respondent no. 8 (who has been duly served, but has not entered appearance) for the post-in-question, such appointment shall stand automatically cancelled in view of this order.

The entire exercise, in terms of this order, shall be completed by the respondent no. 6 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks, but not later than twelve weeks from the date of communication of a photostat certified copy of this order."

Being aggrieved, the private respondent has come up

by way of this appeal.

At the outset, we notice that on the day the writ

petition was disposed of, the private respondent in the writ

petition who is the appellant before us, did not appear before

the learned Judge either in person or through learned

Advocate. The learned Judge noted in the order that the

private respondent who had been duly served did not enter

appearance.

In view of the fact that the appellant herein chose to

stay away from the proceedings before the learned Single

Judge in spite of having due notice thereof, we are not

inclined to entertain this appeal. It would be unfair to the

learned Single Judge if we permit the appellant to argue

before us that the learned Judge passed a wrong order. The

appellant should have participated in the proceeding before

the learned Single Judge and advanced her arguments before

his Lordship.

We decline to entertain this appeal. However, this

will not prevent the appellant from approaching the learned

Single Judge having determination in the matter with an

appropriate application and explain her absence before the

learned Single Judge. If she is able to demonstrate sufficient

cause for her absence before the learned Single Judge, the

learned Judge may pass appropriate orders as His Lordship

may deem fit and proper.

Before parting, we put on record the submission made

on behalf of the writ petitioner that the order under appeal

has been implemented. The old panel was scrapped. A new

panel was prepared and the writ petitioner was appointed as

Asha Worker.

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.)

(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)