MOUSUMI GHOSAL ADHIKARY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the appointment of the private respondent as 2nd ANM in the Jibantala Sub-Centre.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that for the post of 2nd ANM advertisement was published. Initially the last date for filing applications was 20th October, 2006. Subsequently, the date for submitting application was extended till 30th November, 2006 and the petitioner filed her application on 30th November 2006 i.e. within the extended period. All necessary documents were annexed with the application as required. A photostat copy of the EPIC card was also enclosed wherefrom the residential status of the petitioner was evident. On 28th March, 2007 the petitioner was directed to appear before the selection committee with all original documents for verification. THE same was done and thereafter the petitioner was selected and placed at serial no. 1 of the panel prepared. Subsequently, by communication dated 24th March, 2008 the petitioner's selection has been cancelled on the ground of failure to produce sufficient proof of residential status and she was replaced by the private respondent. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that all documents submitted with the application were also produced in original on 28th March, 2007. THE case of the petitioner not being married which the statutory authorities are now seeking to make out was not a ground for cancelling her selection. THE complaint was filed by the private respondent on 21st March, 2007 and the same was directed to be enquired into. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to meet the said complaint. THE marriage invitation card relied on by the private respondent is of 5th March 2007, whereas from the certificate of marriage issued by the Registrar, it will be appear that the petitioner was married on 27th November, 2006. As the marriage certificate has been issued under Section 8(1) of the 1955 Act unless the same is set aside a statutory presumption exists with regard to the validity of such certificate. THE marital status of the petitioner is not a reason for cancelling her selection and cannot be supplanted in the affidavit filed as held in 2009 1 CHN 27. THEre has also been violation of the principles of Natural Justice as no hearing was given to the petitioner and as all requisites have been complied with the authorities could not have set aside her selection. Reliance is placed on 2011 2 CHN 387. For all the said reasons the appointment of the private respondent be set aside.

(3.) HAVING considered the submissions of the parties, on the date of application that is 30th November, 2006 the petitioner was eligible to file an application as one of the eligible criteria was that the candidate should be a married woman. The petitioner was married on the date when she applied. This will appear from the certificate issued by the marriage registrar. This is not the reason for cancellation of the petitioner's selection. The only reason for cancellation of her selection is insufficient proof of residential status. On the direction of this Court the original records were produced by the State respondent and from a reading of the application filed by the petitioner it appears that the permanent address given in such application was as follows:? (iv) permanent address Gram Jibantala P.O.J.S. bad Canning South 24 Parganas Pin 743376.