Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
For The vs The State Of West Bengal & on 25 April, 2013
Author: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
Bench: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay
1
25.04.13
7/akd
F.M.A. 25 of 2013
with
C.A.N. 10559 of 2012
Mr. Tapabrata Chakraborty,
Mr. Bibekananda Tripathy
... ... for the appellant
Mr. Nibaran Kumar Das
... ... for the respondent
No. 6
Mr. Debangshu Basak, Mr. Manoranjan Jana ... ... for the State Re : C.A.N. 10559 of 2012 This application has been filed in connection with the appeal preferred from the order dated 13th September, 2012 passed by a learned Judge of this court whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition without granting any relief to the appellant-petitioner herein.
From the records we find that the appellant- petitioner herein participated in the selection process for the post of Anganwadi worker under Nandigram-I ICDS Project as a 'General' category candidate and the said appellant-petitioner was also empanelled for appointment to the post of Anganwadi worker as a waitlisted candidate. As a matter of fact, the appellant-petitioner herein was the third candidate in the waiting list prepared by the 2 selectors and the respondent No. 6 herein secured fourth position in the said waiting list. The respondent No. 6 herein was, however, favoured with the appointment to the post of Anganwadi worker although the said respondent No. 6 was the fourth waitlisted candidate. The appellant-petitioner herein, therefore, challenged the appointment of the respondent No. 6 by filing a writ petition before this court. The learned Single Judge refused to grant any relief to the appellant-petitioner herein.
It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 6 herein was appointed to the post of Anganwadi worker although the name of the said respondent No. 6 was mentioned in the panel below the appellant- petitioner herein as the waitlisted candidate. The learned Advocate representing the State- respondents submits that the claim for appointment of the appellant-petitioner was ignored since the said appellant-petitioner was a Graduate and in terms of the guidelines applicable at the relevant time, no Graduate could be appointed to the post of Anganwadi worker.
Mr. Tapabrata Chakrabroty, learned Advocate representing the appellant-petitioner herein, however, submits that the higher qualification of a candidate cannot be a bar for selection to the post of Anganwadi worker.
3
Mr. Chakraborty relies on an unreported decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Madhuri Roy & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (F.M.A. 1510 of 2011) wherein this court specifically held that higher qualifications of the candidates cannot be the ground for denying appointment to the post of Anganwadi workers.
Mr. Chakraborty also relies on a Special Bench judgment of this court in the case of Rina Dutta & Ors. vs. Anjali Mahato & Ors. reported in 2010 (3) CAL LT (Cal) 232 (HC) wherein the Hon'ble Special Bench held:
"18.................................................... When a particular qualification is laid down in an advertisement relating to a distinct class of candidates, the candidates possessing a qualification higher than that advertised can ordinarily not be debarred or disqualified, but it is open to the employer to make a rule providing for disqualification of candidates possessing qualification higher than the prescribed qualification, but the burden would be on the employer to justify such a rule."
Mr. Chakraborty further submits that in the present case, there was no valid reason to impose any restriction on the candidates for acquiring the higher qualification. It is also submitted on behalf of the appellant-petitioner that no reason has been prescribed by the State Government in the guidelines and/or notification as to why the higher qualification will not be accepted.
Undisputedly, the State Government modified its earlier guidelines with regard to the qualifications of the Anganwadi workers. In the modified 4 guidelines, it has been made clear that all Graduate and higher qualified candidates would be eligible for selection to the post of Anganwadi worker. The aforesaid modified guidelines came into effect on and from 1st April, 2012.
In view of the aforesaid Special Bench judgment of this court in the case of Rina Dutta (Supra) and subsequent modification of the guidelines by the State Government withdrawing the restrictions on the educational qualification of the Anganwadi workers, presumably upon realising that the said restrictions were not proper, it has now become really difficult at this stage for the State Government to justify that the restrictions imposed earlier on the higher qualifications and mentioned in the previous guidelines were valid and proper.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the respondent authorities herein were not justified in denying appointment to the appellant-petitioner herein to the post of Anganwadi worker in view of acquiring higher qualification.
The respondent No. 6 could not be appointed to the post of Anganwadi worker superseding the claim of the appellant-petitioner herein since the said appellant-petitioner was admittedly, placed above the said respondent No. 6 in the panel prepared by the Selection Committee for the post of Anganwadi worker in respect of the Nandigram-I ICDS Project. 5 For the aforementioned reasons, the respondent authorities are directed to appoint the appellant- petitioner herein to the post of Anganwadi worker at Nandigram-I ICDS Project in place of the respondent No. 6 forthwith.
The respondent No. 6 is also an empanelled candidate and placed in the panel just below the appellant-petitioner herein. The said respondent No. 6 is working as an Anganwadi worker under the Nandigram-I ICDS Project since May, 2011. We have been informed by the Child Development Project Officer, Nandigram-I that few posts of Anganwadi worker are still lying vacant at the aforesaid Nandigram-I ICDS Project under the 'General' category.
In the aforesaid circumstances, we direct the Child Development Project Officer, Nandigram-I to accommodate the said respondent No. 6 against a vacant post of Anganwadi worker meant for the 'General' category candidate without any further delay by issuing a fresh appointment letter. The respondent authorities particularly, the Child Development Project Officer, Nandigram-I should take immediate appropriate steps for issuing appointment letter to the appellant-petitioner herein to the post of Anganwadi worker in place of the respondent No. 6 and will also issue a fresh appointment letter without any further delay to the 6 respondent No. 6 against the available vacant post of Anganwadi worker.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, we set aside the impugned order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge and dispose of both the application as well as the appeal upon treating the said appeal as on day's list.
In the facts of the present case, there will be no order as to costs.
Let a xerox plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Advocates of the respective parties on usual undertaking.
(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.) (Murari Prasad Shrivastava, J.)