MUNMUN PARAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A disgruntled writ petitioner aggrieved by exclusion of her name from a panel prepared for the appointment of Auxiliary Nurses and Midwife (hereinafter referred to as 'the ANM') Training Course for a certain center and selection of the name of the respondent no. 10 to the writ petition has filed the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia praying for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to allow or recruit the petitioner to undergo the ANM Training Course for the relevant sub-center after discarding the name of the respondent no. 10, a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated September 7, 2009 passed in favour of the respondent no. 10 for the said Training Center.

(2.) THE case as made out by the petitioner was that she had passed the Madhyamik examination in the year 1999 in the 2nd Division. She secured 422 marks out of a total of 800 marks which came to 52.75 per cent. She was the permanent resident of Village Kararpara, Bajeprotap under Block Amta I, Howrah. She has various documents in support of her residential address. On July 29, 2008 an advertisement was issued by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal, inviting applications from married women in the age group of 25 to 35 and a resident of one of the villages comprising the relevant sub-center for selection of trainees under ANM course inter alia for Bajeprotap subcenter. THE petitioner applied for the said post. THE list of successful candidates for the said training course was published and a panel was prepared. THE petitioner's name was at serial no. 1 of the three selected candidates and as such she was waiting for her final call for the said training course. But she ultimately received no such intimation. THE petitioner's assertion is that a surreptitious device had been adopted to discard her name on the plea of her lack of residential qualification. THE petitioner made a representation to the Block Development Officer, Amta and to various other authorities.

(3.) THE petitioner had initially affirmed an affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State denying the earlier contention of the State that the petitioner was beyond the command area of Bajeprotap sub-center. THE petitioner also maintained that in the affidavit-inopposition there was no whisper as to the area covered under which subcenter the respondent no. 10 belonged to. THE writ petitioner had denied the contention that for selection for Second ANM residential criteria did not arise. Moreover, the opposition was silent about the dispute relating to the residential address and service area of the respondent no. 10 and why the panel was published in the notice board of Amta Gram Panchayat Hospital in November, 2008. According to the writ petitioner the main question was whether the publication of the panel was necessary and whether the subsequent alleged panel where the name of the petitioner was not there was at all published or not.