SHYASMLI PATRADHAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record. Having heard the learned advocate for the parties and upon perusing the instant application, it appears that the petitioner had been appointed to the post of Anganwari Sahayika under the Child Development Project Officer, Labhpur, Birbhum, in terms of an appointment letter dated 29th November, 2007. The petitioner has stated that she joined her post on 30th November, 2007. In paragraph 11 of the writ petition she has further stated that the concerned Child Development Project Officer had subsequently taken away her original appointment letter and asked her not to resume her duties. According to the petitioner, she was a scheduled caste candidate and was appointed to the post-in-question on such basis. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the writ petitioner that the petitioner's right to continue with her job as an Anganwari Sahayika was illegally taken away by the concerned Child Development Project Officer. She relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suman Verma vs. Union of India & Ors., 2004 AIR(SC) 4800, to contend that the writ petitioner, having fulfilled the requisite eligibility criteria at the time of joining service, ought to have been allowed to continue as an Anganwari Sahayika.

(2.) On the other hand, learned advocate for the State submits, on instruction, that on the date of interview, the petitioner never produced any scheduled caste certificate. Even on the date of her appointment, i.e., on 29th November, 2007, she never possessed any scheduled caste certificate. According to the learned advocate, in terms of the prevailing rules and guidelines as applicable, it was incumbent on the part of the writ petitioner to have produced her scheduled caste certificate prior to her appointment, in order to demonstrate her eligibility as a scheduled caste candidate, which, admittedly, she never produced. In such circumstances, the writ petitioner was not allowed to work as an Anganwari Sahayika by the concerned Child Development Project Officer.

(3.) It is the admitted position that on the date of interview, i.e., on 26th November, 2007, the writ petitioner never produced any scheduled caste Certificate before the Interview Board. The appointment letter in favour of the writ petitioner was issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Labhpur, Birbhum, being the respondent No. 4, on 29th November, 2007. It has been stated by the petitioner herself, in paragraph 12 of the writ petition, that she received her caste certificate only on 23rd June, 2008, which was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bolpur, Birbhum. It is, therefore, clearly evident that as on the date of interview and even subsequently on the date of issuance of appointment letter in her favour, she never possessed any scheduled caste certificate. The question of her being treated as a scheduled caste candidate could have arisen only on production of a valid scheduled caste certificate issued by a competent authority before the interview took place or, at least, before her joining service as an Anganwari Sahayika. Mere assertion on her part that she belonged to a scheduled caste community was not enough for her to be legally recognised as a person belonging to a scheduled caste. If that is to be applied as a logic, then in case of all such appointments, there will be no necessity for production of any document in support of one's candidature for the purpose of fulfilling eligibility criteria.