Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Reboti Mal & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 3 May, 2012
Author: Biswanath Somadder
Bench: Biswanath Somadder
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice: - Biswanath Somadder
W. P. 23561 (W) of 2006.
Reboti Mal & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioner(s) :- Mr. Sabbir Ahmed
Sk. Saifuddin
Mr. Sadhan Kumar Halder
... For the State.
Heard on : 03.5.2012.
Judgment on : 03.5.2012.
Biswanath Somadder, J.:
Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the writ petition, which has been taken out by twenty-nine individuals who have joined as co-petitioners, it appears that all of them were participants in a selection process initiated by the Nalhati - II, Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project, Lohapur, District - Birbhum, for filling up the posts of 'Anganwadi Helper'.
The writ petitioners have prayed, inter alia, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to approve the panel forthwith and to give them appointment.
According to the learned advocate for the petitioners, having been successfully empanelled, the writ petitioners ought to be appointed as Aganwadi Helpers and a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued commanding the respondent authorities to issue appointment letter in their favour. 2 On the other hand, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State relies on the supplementary affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 to 6 and submits that from the documents annexed thereto it would be apparent that no consequential steps could be initiated to give appointment to the writ petitioners, upon publication of their names as qualified candidates, in view of various irregularities which were committed during the selection process and were detected subsequently. He also submits that the writ petitioners, being mere participants in the selection process, cannot seek issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the concerned respondent authorities to favour them with appointments. He submits that the documents disclosed in the supplementary affidavit-in-opposition would amply demonstrate that the concerned Child Development Project Officer has himself admitted to the irregularities committed during the selection process.
After considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and upon perusing the pleadings, it appears that the writ petitioners, in their individual and independent capacity, applied for participating in the recruitment process for the posts of 'Anganwadi Helper' sometime in the year 2006. It is the admitted position that the concerned Child Development Project Officer published their names as qualified candidates for selection to the posts of 'Aganwadi Helper'. However, there cannot be any doubt that the writ petitioners were mere participants in a selection process. Even if their names had been published by the office of the concerned Child Development Project Officer as qualified candidates for selection of Aganwadi Helpers, such publication of their names cannot ipso facto translate into an assurance given by the State that they will be favoured with appointments. The process of successful selection in respect of any recruitment process culminates in issuance of either a letter of appointment or an offer letter for appointment to the successful candidate. No legal right accrues in favour of any person to invoke the Constitutional writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 before issuance of such letter of appointment or an offer letter for appointment by the concerned authority. Mere publication of names of candidates shown to be qualified for selection cannot be construed - by any stretch of imagination - as successful culmination of the selection process. The copy of the document annexed at page 10 of the supplementary affidavit-in-opposition, merely indicates the roll numbers and names of those who were qualified for selection of Aganwadi Helpers under Nalhati - II, ICDS Project, Lohapur, Birbhum. It is not a publication of names of successful candidates who are to be issued appointment letters or letters offering appointment. That apart, it is noticed from the copies of the documents 3 annexed to the supplementary affidavit-in-opposition that the entire selection process for the post-in-question was vitiated due to gross irregularities, which have been detected by the concerned authorities subsequently and are manifest from the memo dated 27th September, 2006, issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Nalhati - II, ICDS Project, Birbhum, addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rampurhat, Birbhum, and the confidential report dated 8th September, 2006, prepared by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rampurhat, Birbhum, which was submitted to the District Magistrate, Birbhum. The irregularities are glaring and indicative of a sordid state of affairs in respect of the selection process of Anganwadi Helpers for Nalhati - II, ICDS Project, Birbhum.
In such facts and circumstances as stated above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties.
(Biswanath Somadder, J.) 4 5