Manasi Kundu(Karak) vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

Amrita Sinha, J

In response to an advertisement published by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Bankura Vide Memo No. 1095/SC dated July 10, 2017 the petitioner

participated in the selection process for filling up the vacancies of Anganwadi Worker in different ICDS Projects under Bankura (HQ) Sub-Division.

A written examination was held. A list of candidates eligible to appear in the interview was published. The name of the petitioner did not figure in the

said panel of candidates eligible to appear in the interview.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the entire selection process was conducted contrary to the guidelines postulated in Memorandum No. 288-

SW/3S-225/05 dated January 25, 2006 issued by the Government of West Bengal, Department of Women & Child Development and Social Welfare.

The petitioner submits that the members who were supposed to be present in the Selection Committee were not there. The Selection Committee was

not properly constituted and accordingly any step taken by the improperly constituted Selection Committee is bad in law. The entire selection process

is liable to be set aside by this Court.

The petitioner further submits that the panel that has been prepared containing the names of the candidates eligible to appear in the interview does not

disclose the marks obtained by them in the written test. In the absence of the disclosure of comparative marks it is not possible for the petitioner to

make out what was the lowest marks and whether she was at all eligible to appear in the interview or not on the basis of the marks obtained by her in

the written test.

The learned advocate representing the State respondents relies on the provisions mentioned in serial 15 of the aforesaid memorandum dated January

25, 2006 wherein it has been specifically stated that the marks obtained in the written examination is not to be shown to the members of the Selection

Committee prior to finalization of the panel. It is also mentioned in the said memorandum that the answer scripts together with the tabulation sheet and

sheets of the marks obtained in the written test will be preserved by the respective Sub-Divisional Officers/ Additional Director of Social Welfare in

sealed covers and the same should be handed over to the concerned Child Development Project Officer after completion of the viva-voce test for

preparation of the panel.

From the submissions made on behalf of the parties it appears that the petitioner is aggrieved as her name has not figured in the list prepared for

interview of the eligible candidates. If the petitioner intends to know the marks obtained by her in the written test the same may be followed up by

taking recourse to law.

The memorandum in question specifically debars the authorities from disclosing the marks of the written examination prior to finalization of the panel.

At this stage there is no scope for the petitioner to know the marks she has obtained in the written examination. The same will be disclosed at the

proper time.

The submission of the petitioner that the Selection Committee was not constituted in accordance with the guidelines mentioned in the said

memorandum cannot be entertained at this stage. The petitioner was well aware of the guidelines prior to appearing in the selection test. She took a

calculated chance to appear in the recruitment process. The moment she became unsuccessful she turned around and challenged the constitution of

the Selection Committee by filing the instant writ petition. Had she been successful in the written test she perhaps would not have raised such a plea.

It is settled law that writ petition challenging the constitution of the Selection Committee at the instance of an unsuccessful candidate is not

maintainable. An unsuccessful candidate is not entitled to approach the Court to stall or challenge the selection process after participating in the said

process.

The petitioner herein being an unsuccessful candidate does not have the right to challenge the selection process which commenced by an

advertisement published way back in the year 2017.

In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner in the instant writ petition. The writ petition being WP No. 254(W) of 2020 fails

and hereby is dismissed.

Affidavit-of-service filed in Court is taken on record.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for be given to the parties after completion of all legal formalities.