Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Prasantika Parvin vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 28 November, 2023
10.
28-11-2023
(Ct. no.06)
debajyoti
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
APPELLATE SIDE
MAT 1233 of 2023
+
IA NO:CAN/1/2023
Prasantika Parvin
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Md. Yousuf Ali
... For the Appellant.
Mr. Somnath Ganguli, learned A.G.P.,
Mr. Balarko Sen,
Ms. Kalpita Paul
... For the State.
By consent of the appearing parties, the appeal
and the connected application are taken up together
for hearing.
In this appeal, the order dated April 28, 2023
passed by a learned Single Judge in WPA 17590 of
2022 has been impugned.
We have heard learned advocates for the parties
at length.
Before the learned Single Judge, the present
appellant, being the writ petitioner, challenged the
appointment of the private respondent no.9, Naziya
Khanam, as an 'ASHA Karmi' in Swarupnagar Village
under Begumpur Bishnupur Gram Panchayat.
Before the Writ Court, it was the contention of the
writ petitioner that the appointment of the private
respondent no.9 was not in accordance with the
guidelines for appointment of the 'ASHA Karmi', as
published by the Health and Family Welfare
Department, Government of West Bengal. The
learned Single Judge in the impugned order, found
that the private respondent no.9 belonged to the
village Swarupnagar in respect of which she has been
appointed as an 'ASHA Karmi' and, thus, found no
illegality and/or infirmity in her appointment and,
accordingly, dismissed the instant writ petition.
Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner has
approached this Court by way of this appeal.
Drawing our attention to page nos.21 and 25 of
the writ petition, which has been annexed with CAN 1
of 2023 filed in connection with this appeal, vis-à-vis
page no.10 of the affidavit of the respondent no.9, it
is argued on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner
that the learned Single Judge, while passing the
impugned order, has failed to visualize that though
the private respondent no.9 belongs to the same
village, but, she resides under a different Gram
Panchayat and that the vacancy was notified in
respect of a separate 'Upa Swastha Kendra' under
whose territory the present appellant resides and not
the private respondent no.9.
While opposing the contention raised by learned
advocate for the appellant, learned advocate for the
State draws our attention to page no.21 of the
affidavit filed by his client which is the revised
guideline dated June 27, 2012, passed by the Health
and Family Welfare Department, Government of West
Bengal, being Memo no.HFW/NRHM-20/2006/(Part
II)/1631, for selection of 'ASHAs'. It is contended on
behalf of the respondent no.7/State that sub-clause
(B.2) of Clause 'B' categorically mentions that the
candidate should be a resident of the same village for
which she will be selected. It is, thus, argued that
since the private respondent no.9 belongs to the
same village, by no stretch of imagination, it can be
said that her selection as an 'ASHA Karmi' was illegal.
On perusal of the entire materials as placed
before us and after hearing learned advocates for the
contending parties, we are satisfied that the private
respondent no.9 is a resident of Village-Swarupnagar
where the present appellant, being the writ petitioner,
also resides. From the revised guideline dated June
27, 2012, we find that one of the eligibility criteria for
being selected as an 'ASHA Karmi' is - "B.2: Should be
a resident of the same village for which she will be
selected".
On a perusal of the aforesaid condition, vis-à-
vis, the materials placed before us, we find that the
private respondent no.9 belongs to the same village
for which she has been appointed as an 'ASHA
Karmi'. The argument of learned advocate for the
appellant/writ petitioner that the person selected
should be of the same 'Upa Swastha Kendra', does
not find any place in the aforesaid revised guideline.
Such being the position, we are of the considered
view that there is little scope to interfere with the
judgment impugned.
We, thus, find no merit in the instant appeal and
the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with the
connected application. As a result, the impugned
order dated April 28, 2023 passed by the learned
Single Judge in WPA 17590 of 2022 is hereby
affirmed.
While disposing of the instant appeal, we,
however, make it clear that we have not gone into the
merits with regard to the other eligibility criteria
either of the present appellant/writ petitioner or of
the private respondent no.9.
All parties shall act on the server copies of this
order duly downloaded from the official website of
this Court.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if
applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance
of all necessary formalities.
(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)
