Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Prasantika Parvin vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 25 September, 2023
04. 25.09.2023
Court No.6
Tanmoy Ghosh
MAT 1233 of 2023
Prasantika Parvin
-Versus-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
IA No: CAN/1/2023
Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharjee, Adv.,
Mr. Md. Yusuf Ali, Adv.
...for the appellant.
Mr. Somnath Ganguli, Ld. AGP,
Mr. Balarko Sen, Adv.
...for the State.
Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with
the records.
It appears that the Pradhan of the concerned Gram
Panchayat has been served but nobody represents the
Pradhan. The private respondent has refused service,
which amounts to good service in law.
A judgment and order dated April 28, 2023, whereby
the appellant's writ petition being WPA No. 17590 of
2022, was dismissed, is under challenge in this appeal.
The contention of the appellant/writ petitioner before
the learned Single Judge was that the private respondent
has been wrongly appointed in the concerned post of
ASHA since she is not a resident under the relevant Gram
Panchayat. The appellant is residing within the
jurisdiction of the concerned Gram Panchayat.
The learned Judge rejected the appellant's contention
by holding that as per the concerned notification dated
July 13, 2018, it is sufficient if a candidate is resident of
the concerned village and it is not necessary that the
candidate resides within the territorial limits of the
concerned Gram Panchayat.
The appellant also relied on clause E.7 of the revised
guideline for selection of ASHAs, issued by the Health and
Family Welfare Department, Government of West Bengal,
vide Memorandum dated June 27, 2012. The said clause
reads as follows:-
"E.7: Based on the marks obtained in Madhyamik or
equivalent examination and scores in interview, the ASHA
Selection Committee is to draw up a GP wise final list with a
panel of three candidates for each position in Proforma
ASHA_P1 as provided by the State ASHA Cell under NRHM
(attached along with this order as Annexure 2.). All sections of
the Proforma ASHA_P1 should be properly filled up failing
which the selection will not be approved at the State level."
The learned Single Judge, after considering all points
urged before Her Ladyship, dismissed the writ petition
with the following observations:-
"The court is not impressed with such submission of the
petitioner as the eligibility criteria for being selected as an Asha
has been laid down in Clause B of the guidelines of 2012. Clause
B.2 clearly provides that the eligible candidate must be a
resident of the same village for which she will be selected. It is
also an admitted fact that both the petitioner and the respondent
no.9 are residents of Swarupnagar Village. The Asha sub-centre
is situated within the village.
The administerial job to be done by the selection committee,
i.e., preparation of a panel according to the gram panchayat does
not indicate that the eligibility criteria as per the same guidelines
has been prescribed in Clause B. The court cannot go beyond the
guidelines and accept the contention of the petitioner. "
Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner has come up
before us by way of this appeal.
Learned Advocate for the appellant argues that
clause E.7 of the revised guidelines contemplates that the
Selection Committee will draw up a Gram Panchayat wise
final list with the panel of three candidates. This would
necessarily mean that a candidate must be a resident
within the concerned Gram Panchayat. According to
learned Counsel, the learned Single Judge failed to
appreciate this point.
Mr. Ganguli, learned Advocate appearing for the
State seeks a little time to obtain instructions in the
above regard.
List the matter once again on October 3, 2023.
Mr. Ganguli is requested to take instructions on
what is the effect and true meaning of clause E.7 of the
Revised Guideline of 2012 and also to what extent such
guidelines have binding force.
(Arijit Banerjee, J.)
(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)
