Sandhya Jana (Bej) @APPELLANT@Hash State of West Bengal & Ors

Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.

This writ application has been filed by the petitioner praying appointment to the post of Sahayika under Tajpur Gram Panchayat in Integrated Child

Development Scheme, at Amta-II Block, Howrah by setting aside the appointment of private respondent No. 5. The petitioner has alleged that in

response to a notification made by the respondent authority she applied for the post of Sahayika under Integrated Child Development Scheme project

(ICDS, inshort, hereafter) in Tajpur Gram Panchayat in the year 2010. The selection test was held on 30.01.2010. According to the petitioner she was

selected for the said post but she was not given the appointment. On the contrary, a candidate who has been made party respondent as respondent

No. 5 was given appointment in the said post though the said private respondent did not appear in the selection test. After publication of the result the

petitioner met the concerned authority being the respondent No. 3 and subsequently made a representation (which has been annexed to the writ

application as annexure P-3) but no step has been taken by the concerned authority being the respondent No. 3 for redressal of her grievance. For this

reason she has filed this writ application.

The respondent No. 3, being the Child Development Project Officer and the respondent No. 5 i.e. the private respondent namely Jhuma Malik

(Manna) have filed their affidavits-in-opposition to which the writ petitioner has filed her affidavit-in-reply. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the

respondent No. 5 it has been stated that as she belongs to Schedule Caste category and the petitioner belongs to General category and as they

competed for the said post for two different categories the petitioner cannot have any allegation and competition with her and the allegation that she

did not appear in the selection test is incorrect and not true. The private respondent has further stated in her affidavit that for the said post five

vacancies were declared for the General category for which the writ petitioner competed and two vacancies were declared for SC category for

which she competed. Out of the two vacancies of SC category she became second and ultimately joined the service. In support of her statement as to

SC category the said private respondent has disclosed copy of her schedule caste certificate annexing the same in the writ application.

In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 3 it has been stated that five vacancies were declared for the said post in General Category

and two vacancies were declared for the said post in SC category The petitioner was not within the first five candidates of General Category; her

place in the panel was 17th. Two posts were declared for SC category and the private respondent was the second candidate in the said category. For

this reason the writ petitioner could not be given appointment to the post whereas the private respondent was appointed in the said post reserved for

SC category.

The respondent No. 3 in his affidavit-in-opposition has disclosed the vacancy statement under Amta-II ICDS as per 100 point roster and a merit list

containing names of the candidates. As the petitioner raised serious doubt about the genuinety of the merit list disclosed in the affidavit of the

respondent No.3 I directed the respondent No. 3 to produce in Court the original records pertaining to the said examination. The original records were

produced pursuant to my direction and were inspected by the petitioner herself along with her Learned Advocate in presence of the CDPO and the

Learned State Advocate. This Court has also perused the original records to see whether there was any basis of doubts raised by the petitioner. On

perusal, this Court have not found any irregularity in those records and on being asked, the petitioner could not point out any irregularity or illegality in

those records specially the marks awarded and the panel position of the candidates. The petitioner inspected the original records along with her

Learned Advocate and the petitioner became satisfied that the private respondent competed for a separate category and they did not compete against

each other.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that:

(i) When two persons compete for a post but for different categories, candidate of a category cannot made allegation in writ application against the

candidate for a separate category. Such allegation may form subject matter of any public interest litigations which are writ applications but of a

different nature. In a writ petition like the present one a candidate is not entitled to make an allegation against a candidate who is not even in the

competition for a post with the other candidate.

(ii) If serious doubts are raised by a party to a writ application as to the documents annexed in a writ application, the questioned documents in original

are required to be produced not only for perusal by the other party and not only for the adjudication and for the interest of justice but also for

generating confidence in a procedure and method of adjudication by the question-raising-party in particular and the citizens of this country in general.

On perusal of the original records it is found that the petitioner was not within the first five candidates, her rank was 17th and the private respondent

was the second candidate in the SC category. Thus the allegation made by the writ petitioner against the private respondent is a misconceived one and

baseless and the petitioner’s allegation as to preparation of the panel illegally has no basis. In the facts and circumstances I decide that when the

petitioner has not come within the first five candidates her claim for appointing her in the post is liable to be rejected and is rejected and her allegation

against the private respondent is declared as of no merit since such allegations were misconceived. In the circumstances the writ application is

dismissed. Â