Calcutta High Court: In a case challenging appointment of a candidate ranked 17 instead of petitioner who ranked 11, a single-judge bench comprising of Hiranmay Bhattacharyya,* J., held that 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 or in any arbitrary manner by appointing a Scheduled Caste candidate.
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, the petitioner sought a writ directing the respondent authority to appoint her as an Anganwari helper under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) project in Mahishadal-1 (Nandakumar).
The petitioner applied for the Anganwari helper/sahayika position, participated in the written examination, and attended a viva voce interview on 16-12-2009. The petitioner claimed to be ranked 11 in the selection panel dated 02-07-2010 but alleged that the respondent authority appointed another candidate who ranked 17 in the panel, instead of her. The petitioner argued that this appointment was illegal.
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner contended that the petitioner had a higher score than alleged appointed candidate and that the appointment violated an order of the Supreme Court issued on 06-08-2010, which stayed certain directions of the High Court’s order on 17-05-2010 regarding this matter. The petitioner requested the Court to set aside the appointments and order a fresh selection process.
The State disputed the petitioner’s claims and explained that a General category candidate ranked 10 in the panel, was not engaged due to not meeting the criteria. It was contended that the alleged appointed candidate was a Scheduled Caste candidate ranked 17, was appointed to a Scheduled Caste vacancy. It was argued that the appointments were made in compliance with the Supreme Court’s order dated 06-08-2010.
Moot Point
-
Whether the petitioner’s non-appointment as an Anganwari helper was illegal or in violation of statutory provisions?
-
Whether the appointments made by the respondent authority contravened the Supreme Court’s order dated 06.08.2010?
-
Whether the petitioner’s claim of having a superior score to the appointed candidate was valid?
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the selection process for Anganwari helpers was initiated on 24-01-2009 to fill vacant positions under Mahishadal-1 (Nandakumar) ICDS., including nine posts under GP No. 11, and these posts included two for Scheduled Caste candidates, one for a Scheduled Tribe candidate, and six for General category candidates.
The Court noted that as per West Bengal’s reservation policy, unreserved vacancies could be filled by meritorious reserved category candidates without adjusting them against reserved category vacancies. Therefore, the alleged appointed candidate’s appointment to an unreserved vacancy was justified, and the two posts reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates were rightly filled.
The Court observed that in the present case, out of six unreserved vacancies one such vacancy was filled up by a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste community as she secured rank 2 on the basis of merit in the panel and the authorities were justified in her 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 correctly filled by candidates ranked 7 and 17. It was further observed that the petitioner, being in the General category, ranked 11, did not come within the zone of consideration for appointment.
The Court found no evidence that the appointments violated the Supreme Court’s order dated 06-08-2010, as appointment letters were dated 02-07-2010, and the added respondents had been working since July 2010.
The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the respondent authority acted unlawfully or arbitrarily in appointing a Scheduled Caste candidate.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the present writ petition for lack of merit, with no order for costs. The application was also disposed of.
[Pramila Bera v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 3391, order dated 05-10-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Debabrata Roy, Mr. Manojit Pal, Mr. Sarbani Mukhopadhyay, Mr. Soumik Mondal, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Sk. Md. Galib, Mr. K.M. Hossain, Counsel for the State
Mr. Anil Kr. Chattopadhyay Mr. Dinesh Pani, Counsel for the Respondent 7 to 13
