Sima Mondal & Anr vs Ratna Mondal (Biswas). & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 6662 Cal

03.10.2023
sayandeep
Sl. No. 11
Ct. No. 12



                                 FMA 3943 of 2014

                             Sima Mondal & anr.
                                    -Versus-
                          Ratna Mondal (Biswas). & Ors.


             Mr. Golam Mostafa
             Mr. S. Sabud
                                                 .......for the appellants

             Mr. Pinaki Dhole
             Ms. Tuli Sinha
                                                        .......for the State

             Md. Manuwar Ali
             Ms. Moumita Karmakar
                                          ......for the respondent No. 1

The respondent No. 1 filed writ petition No. 488

of 2010 challenging the selection for the post of ASHA

(Accredited Social Health Activities) for the Centre

Dhulauri Sub Center under Domkal Block within

Dhulauri Gram Panchayat, Murshidabad. The learned

Judge set aside the order of selection on the ground

that respondent No. 1 was not selected that she is over

qualified being a graduate while education qualification

prescribed is Madhyamik or equivalent examination.

The learned Judge set aside the selection following the

Judgment reported in (1996)2 WBLR 2013. The

appellants have come up with present appeal

challenging the said order. The appellants have raised

various grounds specifically that when the first

respondent has not challenged the non- selection on

the ground of over education qualification, the order of

the learned Judge is erroneous. Learned counsel

appearing for the appellant submitted that the first

respondent on misrepresentation approached this Court

without issuing notice to the appellant to set aside the

selection and prayed for setting aside the order of the

learned single Judge.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.

1 and learned counsel appearing for the State

submitted that as per order of this Court dated

08.04.2010 made in writ petition No. 488 of 2010, fresh

selection has been conducted in March 2013. The

appellant, first respondent and others participated in

the selection process. The first respondent and other

candidates were selected and appointed and they are

working from the year 2013 in the post of ASHA.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant did

not dispute that the appellant also participated in the

subsequent selection and admitted that appellant did

not challenge the appointment of first respondent and

others.

In view of the subsequent selection and

appointment and they are working from 2013, this

appeal has become infructuous.

For the above reason, the present appeal is

dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied

for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on

compliance of usual legal formalities.

(V.M. Velumani, J.)

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)