Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pramila Bera (Maiti) vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 5 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Before:
The Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
WPA 21946 of 2014
With
I.A. No. 2 of 2017 (Old CAN 11726 of 2017)
Pramila Bera (Maiti)
VS.
The State of West Bengal & ors.
For the petitioner : Mr. Debabrata Roy,
Mr. Manojit Pal,
Mr. Sarbani Mukhopadhyay
Mr. Soumik Mondal ..... advocates
For the State : Mr. Sk. Md. Galib,
Mr. K.M. Hossain ...... advocates
For the Respondents 7 to 13 : Mr. Anil Kr. Chattopadhyay
Mr. Dinesh Pani ....... Advocates
Reserved on : 10.05.2023
Judgment on : 05.10.2023
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:
1. The writ petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent
authority to appoint her in the post of Anganwari helper under
I.C.D.S. project, Mahishadal-1 (Nandakumar).
2. The petitioner applied for the post of Anganwari helper/sahayika of
I.C.D.S. project, Mahishadal-1 (Nandakumar). Petitioner appeared in
the written examination. She participated in the viva voce which was
held on 16.12.2009. The petitioner claims that her name appeared in
the panel dated 02.07.2010at serial no. 11. It has been alleged in the
writ petition that the respondent authority appointed one Sibani Mal
(Barman) whose name was appearing under Serial No. 17 in the panel
instead of appointing the petitioner whose name was well above in the
said panel at Serial No. 11. Alleging that the respondent authorities
have illegally appointed the candidate who was placed in the panel
below than that of the petitioner, the instant writ petition has been
filed.
3. Mr. Roy learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that
the respondent authorities have appointed the candidate whose name
was appearing under Serial no. 17 in the panel by overlooking the
candidature of the petitioner who was placed in the panel under Serial
No. 11. Mr. Roy submitted that the petitioner secured more marks
than that of Sibani Mal (Barman) who was appointed in the post of
Anganwari helper by the respondent authority. Mr. Roy further
submitted that in a petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) nos.
20036/2010 the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order on
06.08.2010 thereby staying the operative directions of the order of the
Hon'ble High Court dated 17.05.2010 in MAT 289 of 2010. By the said
order the State of West Bengal was directed not to make any fresh
appointment from the existing panel. Mr. Roy submitted that the
appointment of the Anganwari helpers have been made by the
respondent authorities in violation of the order passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and therefore, such appointment are liable to be set
aside and cancelled and the authorities are to be directed to initiate
the selection process afresh.
4. Mr. Galib, learned advocate appearing for the State of West Bengal
seriously disputed the submissions of Mr. Roy. He submitted that one
Anima Samanta (Mondal) who was a candidate belonging to General
category was placed under Serial no. 10 in the said panel but she was
not engaged as she did not come within the zone of consideration. He
further submitted that one Sibani Mal (Barman) who was placed
under Serial no. 17 of the panel belonged to the scheduled caste
community and she was appointed against a scheduled caste vacancy.
Mr. Galib submitted that after the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the
order dated 06.08.2010, the Department of Women and Child
Development and Social Welfare issued a Memorandum dated
17.08.2010 directing that no fresh appointments shall be made for
filling up of vacancies to the post of Anganwari workers/ Anganwari
helpers from the existing panels with effect from 06.08.2010. He
submitted that no appointments have been made in violation of the
order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. Mr. Chattopadhyay learned advocate appeared for the added
respondent nos. 7-13 and submitted that the added respondents duly
participated in the selection process for the post of Anganwari helper
under I.C.D.S. project under Nandakumar Block in the district of
Purba Medinipur. The added respondents became successful in the
selection process and they were appointed as Anganwari helper in
different sub centre as Mahishadal-1 Nandakumar with effect from
09.07.2010. He further submitted that the added respondents are
enjoying monthly remuneration with effect from July, 2010 till date.
6. Heard the learned advocates for the parties are perused the materials
placed.
7. Record reveals that the selection process was initiated by issuance of
a memo dated 24.01.2009 for filling up the vacant posts of Anganwari
helpers under Mahishadal-1 (Nandakumar) I.C.D.S. including nine
posts under GP No. 11. Out of the aforesaid nine posts two posts were
reserved for Scheduled caste candidate, one post was reserved for
Scheduled Tribe candidate and the remaining six posts were for
General category candidates. From the panel of Anganwari helpers of
I.C.D.S. project Mahishadal -1 (Nandakumar) which has been
annexed in the writ petition it appears that the writ petitioner, who
belongs to General category, secured 18.44 marks and was placed
under Serial no. 11 in the said panel. One Sandhyarani Bhunia (Dolai)
who belongs to Scheduled Caste community secured 20.89 marks and
was placed under Serial No. 2 in the panel prepared on the basis of
merit. One Snehalata (Dolai) Bhunia who belongs to Scheduled Caste
community secured 19.22 marks and was placed under Serial no. 7 in
the panel.
8. As per the statutory provisions prevailing in the State of West Bengal
for reservation of posts, an unreserved vacancy can be filled up by a
meritorious reserved category candidate and the vacancy so filled up
by such reserved category candidate shall not be adjusted against the
reserved category vacancies.
9. It appears from the record that out of six unreserved vacancies one
such vacancy was filled up by a candidate belonging to Scheduled
Caste community namely Sandhyarani Bhunia (Dolai) as she secured
second position on the basis of merit in the panel. Therefore, the
authorities were justified in appointing Sandhyarani Bhunia (Dolai)
against an unreserved vacancy and by not adjusting such vacancy
with that reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. The two posts
reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates were rightly filled up one by
Snehalata Dalui (Bhunia) who was placed under Serial No. 7 and
Sibani Mal (Barman) who was placed under Serial No. 17. The writ
petitioner belongs to General category and she was placed under
Serial NO. 11. The petitioner could not come within the zone of
consideration for appointment as an Anganwari helper and for such
reason she was not appointed. It is also not the case of the petitioner
that any candidate belonging to General category and was placed in
the panel at a rank below the petitioner was appointed.
10. Now question arises whether the appointments to the post of
Anganwari helper was made in violation of the order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court dated 06.08.2010 passed in the petition for Special
Leave to Appeal (Civil no. 20036 of 2010). From the documents
annexed to the affidavit in opposition filed by the State and the added
respondent, it appears with that appointment letters were dated
02.07.2010. The added respondents in their affidavit filed pursuant to
an order passed on 22.02.2003 have stated that they have been
working since July 2010 and receiving monthly honorarium with
effect from July 2010 at the prescribed rates. The writ petitioners have
not produced any materials before this Court to show that
appointments were made in violation of the order dated 06.08.2010
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the petition for Special Leave
to Appeal (Civil) No. 20036 of 2010.
11. The writ petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the respondent
authorities have acted de hors the statutory provisions prevailing in
the State of West Bengal with regard to reservation policy or that the
authorities have acted illegally and/or in any arbitrary manner by
appointing Sibani Mal (Barman) a Scheduled Caste candidate.
12. The writ petition is thus devoid of any merit and the same is liable to
be dismissed. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed without,
however, any order as to costs. The application also stands disposed
of.
13. Urgent photostat certified copies, if applied for, be supplied to the
parties upon compliance of all formalities.
(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)
(P.A.-Sanchita)
