Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
( Mathurapur-I Panchayat Samiti & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors. ) on 5 January, 2011
Author: Patherya
Bench: Patherya
1
3 5.1.11 W.P. No.25165(W) of 2010
sl.
pd.
( Mathurapur-I Panchayat Samiti & Anr. -Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors. )
Mr. Sujoy Mondal,
Mr. Gautam Chakraborty ... For the petitioners.
Mr. Tapabrata Chakraborty,
Sk. Rezaul Alam,
Mr. Sanatan Panja ... For respondent No.9.
Mr. Partha Sarathi Bose, Mr. A.P. Deb ... For respondent No.11.
Mr. Pankaj Halder, Mr. Soumen Gayen, Mr. Nitish Kr. Ghosh ... For respondent Nos.12, 13, 14 and 16.
Ms. Rina Banerjee ... For the State.
By this writ petition, the petitioners seek quashing of the Selection Committee constituted for appointment of Anganwari Helpers so also the notice dated 26th July, 2010 and the reservations set out in the said notice so also cancellation of the interviews held between 13th December, 2010 and 24th December, 2010.
The case of the petitioners is that the Memo issued by the Central Government postulated persons who would constitute the Selection Committee for appointment of Anganwadi helpers and in case the Member of Legislative Assembly was absent, the Sabhapati of the Panchayat 2 Samity would chair such Committee. At the interviews held on 13th December, 2010 and 14th December, 2010, the Member of the Legislative Assembly (M.L.A.) was absent and in spite thereof, the petitioner No.2 was not allowed to officiate as the Chairman. Therefore, the interviews held on 13th December, 2010 and 14th December, 2010 have not been conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee and accordingly, the decision taken at such interviews be set aside. In the notice dated 26th July, 2010, seventeen (17) seats have been reserved for Scheduled Caste. The same is not in accordance with the 100 point roster. Therefore, the said notice be set aside and as on an earlier occasion, when Anganwari Workers were to be selected, disqualified candidates were selected there is every possibility that in the appointment of Anganwari Helpers, pursuant to the notice dated 26th July, 2010, disqualified candidates may once again be appointed. Hence, the instant writ petition has been filed and orders sought.
The objections raised have not been considered nor were all the papers sought for by letter dated 13th December, 2010, forwarded to the petitioners. Section 94(4) of the 1973 Act entitles the Sabhapati to file the instant writ petition and therefore, no question of maintainability of the writ petition ought to be entertained, and as an interim measure, no effect be given to the interviews held and appropriate orders be passed.
Counsel for the Selection Committee submits that 3 on 24th June, 2010 a notice was issued for holding a meeting on 26th June, 2010 and the same was received by the petitioner No.2. At the said meeting, the petitioner No.2 was present when it was resolved to issue the notice dated 26th July, 2010 and pursuant thereto, the said notice was issued. Thereafter, a meeting was held on 25th November, 2010 for fixing the date of interview. The said meeting, though unattended by the petitioner No.2, intimation of the proceedings was given and received by the petitioner No.2. On 13th December, 2010 and 14th December, 2010, in the absence of the M.L.A., the petitioner No.2 chaired the interviews, as would be evident from the Attendance Sheet of the Selection Board. Therefore, the pleading in paragraph-28 of the writ petition amounts to suppression of material facts and warrants dismissal of the writ petition. As the petitioner No.2 was a party to the Selection Committee, she cannot now challenge the proceedings and the decision taken therein as held in AIR 1994 S.C. 2466. The petitioner No.2 has also not been authorized by the petitioner No.1 to file the instant writ petition. No copy of the resolution has been produced. Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of locus standi alone and is another reason for dismissal.
Counsel for the private respondents submits that the private respondents have been appointed as Anganwari Workers and are in no way connected with the interviews for appointment of Anganwari Helpers. In fact, the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner No.2 4 was a member of the Selection Committee and as held in 2002 W.B.L.R. (Cal) 757, a member of the Selection Committee, who was a party to the selection process, will not be allowed to undo the selection. Therefore, this writ petition merits no order. In fact, the case of bias has been alleged by the petitioner No.2 but the same has not been proved and as held in 2009(2) C.L.J, 482, in the absence of bias being proved, no order need be passed.
Counsel for the Central Government submits that although in pursuance of its Scheme, Anganwari Workers and Anganwari Helpers are appointed but the selection is within the domain of the State Government and it has no role to play in such selection.
Counsel for the petitioners, in reply, submits that the decision cited in AIR 1994, S.C. 2466 is distinguishable on facts and directions be given for filing affidavits by the parties.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, in this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the notice dated 26th July, 2010 on the ground that the 100 point roster has not been followed. From a reading of the said notice, it appears that a reference has been made to the 100 point roster and it has been specifically stated that the 100 point roster will be followed. At the meeting held on 6th July, 2010, in which the petitioners have participated, the decision to issue the 5 said notice was taken. The petitioners raised no objection to the said reservation either at the meeting or subsequent thereto and therefore, cannot be allowed to raise an objection at this stage. Not allowing the petitioner No.2 to act as a Chairman is incorrect as from the Attendance Sheet produced of the Selection Board, it appears that both on 13th December, 2010 and 14th December, 2010, the petitioner No.2 acted as a Chairperson and her name appears at serial No.1. Therefore, the said allegation levelled against the C.D.P.O. cannot be accepted. As regards the disqualified candidates appointed in respect of Angarwari Helpers, all that can be said is that the procedures be followed in accordance with law.
This takes us to the main issue raised by the opposing parties, namely, the locus standi of the petitioners. The writ petition has been filed by the Panchayat Samity through the Sabhapati. While Section 94(4) of the 1973 Act recognizes the Panchayat Samity as a corporate body, which can sue or be sued but such corporate body must be represented through an authorized person. Such authority can only be acquired by authorization or a decision taken at a meeting. No resolution or letter of authorization has been annexed to the writ petition nor produced at hearing this day. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner No.2 has been authorized on behalf of the petitioner No.1 to file this writ petition. Section 118 of the 1973 Act also requires that the Sabhapati will exercise such functions and 6 discharge such duties, which have been authorized to him at a meeting. Therefore, in the absence of such authorization, on the ground of locus standi alone, this writ petition merits no order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
As no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed, the allegation contained in the petition is not admitted.
While the respondents seek dismissal of the writ petition, the writ petitioners seek direction to be given for filing affidavits. As the issue of locus standi is against the petitioners, no purpose will be served in giving direction for filing affidavits.
Let the instructions filed in Court be kept on record.
Urgent Photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
( Patherya, J.) 7