Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Piyashi Chowdhury (Guin) vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 6 February, 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
W.P.A. 25488 of 2016
With
CAN 1 of 2017
Smt. Piyashi Chowdhury (Guin)
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarapada Das
Mr. Mahadeb Khan
For the State : Mr. Ashim Kumar Ganguly
Mr. Bellal Sheikh
Heard on : 14.01.2026
Judgment on : 06.02.2026
Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-
1. The petitioner's grievance emanated from a selection process initiated for the
engagement to the post of Block "ASHA Facilitator" under the Khatra Sub-
Division, District- Bankura, pursuant to Memo No. 3068 dated 7 th October
2015. The said notification invited applications on a contractual basis and
prescribed the eligibility criteria, mode of selection and assessment. The
petitioner applied within the stipulated time, was found eligible, and her
name appeared in the list of eligible candidate. She participated in the
written and computer test held on 13 th December 2015.
2
2. Despite the existence of vacancies, particularly in the Raipur Block,
engagement letter was not issued to the petitioner. Representations by the
petitioner and another candidate seeking consideration against the
remaining vacancies remained unattended. The petitioner contended that
the selection process initiated in October 2015 was neither formally
concluded nor cancelled.
3. While the process remained unresolved, a subsequent notification being
Memo No. 513/G dated 9th February, 2016 was issued by the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Khatra inviting fresh applications. The petitioner alleged that the
issuance of the said notification deprived eligible candidates under the
earlier process of an opportunity of consideration and led to appointments
being made in excess of the notified vacancies and contrary to the merit list
and reservation norms. It was further alleged that candidates placed lower in
rank were engaged while those placed higher were excluded.
4. In response, the authorities filed affidavits, denying the allegations and
stating that the petitioners were not eligible for appointment as per category
wise merit. It was asserted that the subsequent notification was issued for
filling up remaining vacancies and the selection process was completed after
scrutiny and approval by the competent authority. The pleadings, however,
disclosed inconsistencies in the preparation of eligible and rejected list and
in the number of appointments granted.
5. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WP No. 4770(W) of
2000, pursuant to which directions were issued for taking steps in respect of
the remaining vacancies. Alleging non-compliance with the said order, the
3
petitioner initiated contempt proceedings being CPAN No. 748 of 2016.
During the contempt proceedings, affidavits of complaints were filed stating
that appointments had since been granted.
6. Considering the materials placed, this Court declined to proceed further in
contempt and dropped the contempt application while granting liberty to the
petitioners to challenge their exclusion from engagement and impugned
selection process by initiating appropriate proceedings in accordance with
law.
7. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the entire
grievance of the petitioner traced its origin to the failure of the respondent
authorities to lawfully conclude the selection process initiated by notification dated 7th October 2015. It was contended that the said notification was never cancelled, withdrawn, or formally brought to an end nor were the eligible candidates, including the petitioner informed in writing that the process stood abandoned.
8. It was submitted despite the subsistence of the earlier notification, a subsequent notification dated 9th February 2016 was issued for filling up the remaining vacancies. According to the Learned Advocate for the petitioner, such action deprived the earlier eligible candidates of an opportunity of consideration and resulted in appointments being granted contrary to the notified process. The petitioner asserted that the subsequent notification could not have been used to fill up the vacancies arising from the earlier notification without expressly cancelling the same.
4
9. The Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the selection process revealed apparent inconsistencies. Instances were pointed out where candidates were shown as selected in one list and rejected in another, including a case where the same candidate appeared in the rejected list under the earlier notification, but was selected pursuant to the subsequent notification. It was contended this demonstrated arbitrariness and lack of transparency in the preparation of eligible and rejected lists.
10. It was also argued that the petitioner had duly participated in the written and computer proficiency tests, secured her position in the merit list and yet was denied engagement, while candidates lower in rank were appointed. It was alleged that appointments were granted in excess of the notified vacancies and not in conformity with the category-wise distribution originally declared.
11. The Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's representations were not disposed of, compelling her to approach this Court. Even after an order was passed, directing consideration of the remaining vacancies, the respondent failed to act within time, necessitating initiation of contempt proceedings. On these grounds, it was prayed that the subsequent notification and appointments granted thereunder be set aside and appropriate relief be granted to the petitioner.
12. The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner further submitted as follows:-
i. The respondent nos.3 and 4 committed a mistake by not cancelling the earlier Notification dated 07.10.2015 and also not being informed in 5 writing to the eligible candidates including the earlier writ petitioner by issuing the following Notification dated 09.02.2016 could not filled up the remaining vacancies subsequently by giving appointments to the posts in question, acted not only illegal but also depriving of giving opportunity to the earlier eligible petitioners for their applications to apply to the posts of ASHA Facilitators and also violation of principal of natural justice guaranteed under Article 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India; thus, the following Notification dated 09.02.2016 cannot filled up the remaining vacancies the posts in question, subsequently by giving appointments thereto should be set-aside, quash, cancel, or reject forthwith.
ii. The respondent nos.3 and 4 committed a mistake by not cancelling the earlier Notification dated 07.10.2015 and also not being informed in writing to the eligible candidates including the earlier writ petitioners by issuing the following Notification dated 09.02.2016 cannot filled up the remaining vacancies subsequently by giving appointments to the posts in question is contrary to law, as such the same is bad in law and thus set-aside, quash, cancel, or reject forthwith, iii. The respondent nos.3 and 4 committed a mistake and misguided himself to that effect that attempted to make untrue into true, question of applying against the alleged vacant posts following Notification dated 9th February 2016 did not arise in as much as 3 posts were directed to be filled up out of which one from S.C. category and another 2 of OBC- A and OBC-A as such there was no scope of filling of 6 applications by the petitioner, how such an irresponsible and false statement can be made on oath can be best be explained by the alleged contemnor or the respondent no. 3 and 4, thus, the same was bad in law and thus set-aside, quash, cancel, or reject forthwith.
iv. The respondent nos.3 and 4 had committed a mistake by not taking into consideration that if the Notification of 7th October 2015 was mortem then it will be found that there was 4 vacancies in unreserved categories whereas 8 candidates were appointed and there was one vacancy in OBC-B and 3 candidates were appointed, the entire selection process was illegal and bad in law. Thus, the above following Notification no.513/G dated 09.02.2016 could not be sustain in law and the same should be set-aside, quash and cancel forthwith by this Hon'ble Court and thereby the appointments of the private respondent nos.9 and 10 were also be rejected/cancel/set-aside forthwith. v. The respondent nos.3 and 4 has committed a mistake by not taking into consideration that red tapeism and nepotism how far can go can be evidence if the eligible list for recruitment of "ASHA Facilitator" under Khatra Sub-Division prepared following Notification no. 513/G dated 9 th February 2016 was compared with the rejected list and in the eligible list following Notification dated 9th February 2016 one Sk. Amiruddin Son of Sk. Sirajuddin, the private respondent no.10 had been shown as selected but the self-same person was placed in the reject list prepared the following Notification dated 7 th October 2015. Therefore, the same should be set-aside, quash and cancel forthwith by this Hon'ble Court 7 and thereby the appointments of the private respondent nos.9 and 10 were also being rejected/cancel/set-aside forthwith.
13. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent submitted that the recruitment process for engagement of Block ASHA Facilitators under Khatra Sub-Division was conducted strictly in accordance with the notified procedure and reservation norms. It was stated that the initial notification dated 7th October 2015 was issued for filling up 16 posts with specified category wise distribution.
14. It was submitted that the petitioner applied under the OBC-B category and participated in the selection process. Upon evaluation of the written and computer proficiency tests, a merit list was prepared. The sole vacancy under the OBC-B category was filled by a candidate who secured higher marks than the petitioner. The petitioner, having obtained lower marks, was placed in the panel or waiting list and had no entitlement to appointment once the selected candidate joined service.
15. It was further submitted that after completion of the selection under the initial notification, certain posts remained vacant under the specific categories, namely SC and OBC-A. Consequently, a fresh notification dated 9th February 2016 was issued solely for the purpose of filling up those remaining vacancies. It was contended that no vacancy remained under the OBC-B category at that stage. Therefore, the petitioner had no scope for consideration under the subsequent notification.
16. The Learned Advocate for the respondent also submitted the category-wise de-reservation was undertaken following a resolution of the District Level 8 Selection Committee due to non-availability of eligible candidates under certain reserved categories and the revised distribution was duly followed. All selections were completed after scrutiny of applications, assessment of merit and approval by the competent authority.
17. It was further contended that the entire recruitment process was fair, transparent and in compliance with the notified guidelines. The petitioner was not selected purely on merit grounds, having secured lower marks than the selected candidates and therefore did not accrue legal entitlement to appointment. It was submitted that notified 16 posts were filled following due process and reservation norms. No illegality was committed by the respondent authorities.
18. The petitioner calls in question the selection process undertaking for engagement to the post of Block ASHA Facilitator under Khatra Sub- Division, District-Bankura, and seek interference with appointments concluded pursuant thereto.
19. The documents on record revealed that the Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khatra, published the Notification for the recruitment of the Block ASHA Facilitators under Khatra Sub-Division, under Memo No.3068/G dated 07.10.2015, inviting applications for filling up the 16 posts of ASHA Facilitators, delineated as follows:-
VACANCY: UR-04, UR-EC-03, SC-02, ST-01, OBC-A-01, OBC-B-01, SC(EX-D)-01, UR(EX-D)-01, SC-EC-01, OBC-A(EC)-01:TOTAL= 16 9
20. The petitioner applied in connection with the said Notification in the prescribed form within time under OBC-B category, in response to the said notification as follows:-
Total applications received by the authority-54 Eligible Candidates-31 Rejected Candidates- 23 Candidates who appeared in the examination and Computer Test-30 and 01 absent.
21. Based on written test and computer proficiency test performance, a merit list was prepared. The name of the petitioner appeared under Serial No.5 in the list of eligible candidates, which was published by the District Selection Committee and she was allowed to appear in the examination and computer proficiency test. Due to unavailability of eligible candidates under certain reserved categories (Exempted and Ex-Serviceman for Group C & D), the District Level Selection Committee held a meeting on 11.01.2016 and came to a decision by adopting a resolution. The following de-reservations were as follows:-
UR-EC (3) + UR (EX-D) (1) converted to UR→ increasing UR from 4 to 8 SC (EX-C) (1) + SC-EC (1) converted to SC increasing SC from 2 to 4 OBC-A (EC) (1)→ converted to OBC-A increasing OBC-A from 1 to 2. The revised category-wise distribution became:-
UR-08, SC-04, ST-01, OBC-A-02, OBC-B-01 = TOTAL 16
22. Based on the revised category distribution, 13 candidates were selected and provisionally engaged under order passed by the CMOH cum Member 10 Secretary, District Health and Family Welfare Samiti, Bankura, being No.714 dated 16.02.2016. The distribution was as follows:-
UR (8 posts):
Banamali Sannigrahi marks obtained 65.27 Dipsikha Dutta - marks obtained 63.35 Abantika Mukherjee marks obtained 63.15 Rahul Ch. Dangar- marks obtained 61.97 Achintya Patra mark obtained 60.81 Santu Kundu marks obtained 60.32 Sanjukta Mukherjee marks obtained 58.43 Manika Sinhamahapatra marks obtained 57.90 SC (3 posts):
Tapasi Mandal marks obtained 51.94 Prasanta Kr. Mandal marks obtained 47.70 Kanchan Duley - marks obtained 46.59 ST (1 post):
Anup Kumar Sardar - marks obtained 47.70 OBC-B (1 post):
Uttam Rana marks obtained 51.71 (whereas the Writ Petitioner applied for the same post in OBC-B category and scored 46.59 marks in the examination and computer proficiency test).
23. Total 13 candidates from all categories were allotted appointment against 16 vacant posts as per the Notification dated 07.10.2015. In the said selection 11 process, 04 OBC-B category candidates applied against 01 vacant post. Their merit list, position and scores were as follows:-
Banamali Sannigrahi Serial No. 02-Scored 65.35 Rahul Ch. Dangar - Serial No. 05-Scored 61.97 Uttam Rana Serial No. 22-Scored 51.71 Piyashi Chowdhury Serial No. 31-Scored-46.59
24. Banamali Sannigrahi and Rahul Ch. Dangar, had applied in OBC-B category but scored more than the cut-off marks for UR category i.e. 57.90, accordingly, they were selected under the UR category due to higher scores and Uttam Rana was selected under OBC-B who scored more marks than the petitioner. The petitioner remained unselected due to the lowest score among the four candidates. Therefore, the petitioner did not qualify for selection either in OBC-B or UR categories. She was placed on the waiting list but could not be considered further as the sole OBC-B post had been filled.
25. After the selection procedure as per the Notification dated 07.10.2015, 03 posts remained vacant in following categories:-
SC-01 post OBC-A-02 posts Therefore, a fresh Notification being No. 513/G dated 09.02.2016 was published by the District Selection Committee for filing up the aforesaid 03 posts in two categories. In the said selection procedure one eligible candidate for each category was found as follows:-
SC-Tribhanga Mandal 12 OBC-A-Sk Amiruddin (whose candidature was previously rejected under Notification dated 07.10.2015 due to a deficient experience certificate.) One OBC-A post still remained unfilled.
26. A fresh Notification being No.2776/G dated 16.08.2016 was published to fill up the remaining 01 post in OBC-A category. One eligible candidate namely Nurul Islam Khan was selected. The entire 16 posts were filled, completing the recruitment process in accordance with procedural norms and reservation policies by following the guidelines.
27. Against the Notification dated 07.10.2015, the petitioner applied under OBC- B category, wherein she had scored 46.59 marks and secured her position in the merit list as Serial No. 31 under OBC-B category but the selected candidate under OBC-B category namely Uttam Rana had scored 51.71 marks which was more than the marks obtained by the petitioner and secured his position in the merit list as Serial No.22. Therefore, Uttam Rana was selected against the 01 post under OBC-B category.
28. Two fresh Notifications dated 09.02.2016 and 16.08.2016, were published for the remaining vacancies under SC-01 post and OBC-A-02 posts. 01 post under OBC-B category had already been filled up in the first round of selection. The petitioner belonged under OBC-B category. As there was no vacant post under OBC-B category, the application of the petitioner could not be entertained.
29. The candidature of Sk Amiruddin who applied in OBC-A category was rejected in previous selection procedure as per the notification dated 13 07.10.2015 due to deficient experience certificate. Moreover the next selection process as per the notification dated 09.02.2016 he had submitted his application in prescribed form along with required documents and was successful in the written examination and computer proficiency test, entitling him to be selected under OBC-A category.
30. The solitary post of ASHA Facilitator under OBC-B category was already filled up by giving the appointment to Uttam Rana, whose score was 51.71, whereas the score of the petitioner was 46.59, in the first notification under Memo No.3068/G dated 07.10.2015 disentitling her to be appointed.
31. It was submitted by the Learned Advocate for the respondents that the petitioner applied for the sole vacant post under OBC-B category, where the candidate ranked Serial No. 22 of the merit list, namely Uttam Rana was selected with 51.71 marks, whereas the petitioner obtained 46.59 marks and her name was placed in the merit list as a panel candidate in the waiting list in case the selected candidate did not join, but the selected candidate had already joined in service.
32. The petitioner participated in a selection process initiated by notification dated 7th October 2015. She applied under the OBC category, was found eligible, appeared in the written and computer proficiency test and was placed in the merit list. It is not in dispute that the petitioner having secured marks lower than the candidate who has been ultimately selected against the sole vacancy under the OBC-B category.
33. The grievance of the petitioner substantially rests on the issuance of a subsequent notification dated 9th February 2016, without formally cancelling 14 the earlier notification and on the allegation that such action resulted in arbitrariness of opportunity and deviation from the notified procedure.
34. The respondents contrarily contended that the recruitment process was conducted strictly in accordance with the notified criteria and reservation norms. The petitioner was duly considered under her category and once the sole OBC-B vacancy was filled by a candidate securing higher marks, the petitioner had no subsisting right to appointment. It was further contended the subsequent notification was confined to categories where vacancies remain unfulfilled.
35. At the outset, this Court reiterates that even when engagement is contractual in nature, recruitment by State Authorities must conform to the standards of fairness, transparency and procedural propriety. Public and employment in whatever form is a facet of public trust.
36. The record revealed the petitioner was afforded full participation in the selection process relevant to her category. The merit list prepared on the basis of written and computer proficiency test clearly placed another candidate above the petitioner in the OBC-B category. Once the said candidate was selected and joined service, the vacancy stood exhausted. Mere inclusion in a panel or waiting list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment.
37. The contention that the subsequent notification dated 9 th February 2016, ought not to have been issued without cancelling the earlier notification does merit administrative introspection. Recruitment processes must be concluded with clarity and formal closure so that ambiguity does not eclipse 15 transparency. However, administrative imperfection by itself does not invite judicial interdiction, unless it results in demonstrable illegality, or denial of a vested.
38. The materials on record indicate that the subsequent notification was issued only for filling vacancies under categories where posts remained unfilled after completion of the initial selection. No vacancy under the OBC-B category survived at that stage. The petitioner, therefore, had no enforceable claim for consideration under the subsequent notification.
39. The controversy arose when, without formally cancelling or expressly concluding the earlier notification, a subsequent notification dated 9 th February, 2016 was issued for filling up certain remaining vacancies. The absence of a clear, written closure of the earlier process and the simultaneous initiation of a fresh notification created an overlap that lent itself to confusion, contest and competing claims. Administrative actions, particularly in matters of public engagement, must speak with clarity; silence or ambiguity at such stages breeds avoidable grievance.
40. Equally significant is the manner in which category-wise vacancies were dealt with. The record indicated that selections were made strictly on merit within the perspective categories under which the petitioner who applied for the OBC-B category secured marks lower than the selected candidate. Once the sole vacancy under the category stood filled and the selected candidate joined service, the petitioner's claim to appointment under that category could not survive merely by virtue of her placement in the panel. 16
41. However, the scope of judicial review in such matters is not that of an Appellate Authority over administrative decisions. The Court is concerned not with the comparative merits of candidates, but with the legality of the process. Mere dissatisfaction with the outcome, absent demonstrable violation of notified procedure or mala fide intent does not warrant judicial interference.
42. On a conspectus of the materials it cannot be said that the petitioner has been denied consideration within the category for which she has applied nor that a vacancy has remained unfilled against which she has a subsisting claim. The subsequent notification was confined to categories where vacancies persisted and no material had been placed to establish that the petitioner was entitled to be considered there under as a matter of right.
43. It is not discordant that public recruitment, even when contractual, carries with it a constitutional responsibility, Administrative Authority must act with procedural discipline, clarity and candour, so that eligible candidates are not left navigating uncertainty and silence.
44. In the present case, while certain administrative lapses in communication and closure of process are evident and deserve circumspection, the petitioner has not been able to establish a legal entitlement to appointment against the filled category vacancy, not a subsisting right to be considered under the subsequent notification.
45. Judicial review does not extend to rewriting selection outcomes where the process, viewed as a whole, does not disclose arbitrariness of a degree warranting intervention. The petitioner's grievance though not devoid of 17 empathy does not mature into enforceable legal relief. Unless arbitrariness, mala fide or and violation of notified procedure is established, interference is unwarranted, this Court does not sit in appeal over to decide comparative merit of the candidates.
46. Accordingly, the challenge fails.
47. Before parting ,this Court deem it appropriate to observe that administrative authorities must ensure that recruitment processes are concluded with transparency and finality so that it does not suffer under the burden of procedural ambiguity and citizens are not compelled to seek judicial redress for want of timely and reasoned administrative action. Administrative authorities must also ensure formal closure and effective communication of the same. Procedural ambiguity should not undermine public confidence and burden the Constitutional Courts with avoidable litigation. Governance to be credible must be as transparent in its silence as it is in its action.
48. In view of the above discussions, the instant writ petition being WPA 25488 of 2016 is dismissed.
49. There is no order as to costs.
50. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all formalities.
(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)