BULA DEY Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed praying for an order, commanding the respondents not to give any further effect to the impugned memo being No.172/ICD/Qns dated 21st June, 2007 issued by the Child Development Project Officer being Annexure P-6 of the writ petition. By the said memo the Child Development Project Officer, Dubrajpur ICDS, Birbhum, informed the petitioner that as she suppressed her higher qualification while appearing at the viva voce test for the post of Anganwadi worker under Dubrajpur ICDS project, although, graduates were ineligible for the said post, by the said letter she was asked why administrative steps would not be taken against her. The petitioner has stated that she belonged to Other Backward Classes and in pursuance of a notification vide memo No.175 ICD/QNB dated 11th July, 2006 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Dubrajpur ICDS project inviting application for Anganwadi Karmee and Sahayika, she submitted an application in prescribed format. Copies of the notification and the guidelines to fill up the application for Anganwadi Karmee have been annexed as Annexures P-3 and P-4 respectively to the writ petition. One of the conditions have been mentioned in the guidelines that the candidates having graduated were not eligible for the post. It has been stated that the Child Development Project Officer, Dubrajpur ICDS project, Birbhum, vide his memo No.162/ICD/Qns dated 14th June, 2007 intimated the petitioner that she was appointed for the post of Anganwadi worker under Dubrajpur ICDS project, Birbhum at Sishu Vidyapith, ward No.14. After receiving the appointment letter dated 14th June, 2007 the petitioner was served with a memo being No.172/ICD/QNS dated 21st June 2007 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Dubrajpur ICDS project, Birbhum, whereby she was threatened that administrative steps would be taken against her for her non-disclosure of higher qualification during the viva voce test for the aforesaid post. It has been alleged that the Principal of Krishnachandra College, Hatempur, Birbhum, reported to the Child Development Project Officer that the petitioner graduated from that college.

(2.) It was intimated that by suppressing her higher qualification she appeared in the selection test for the post of Anganwadi worker, although, graduates were ineligible for the post. It is stated that, although, concerned respondent issued appointment letter to the petitioner but in view of the aforesaid memo dated 21st June, 2007 the petitioner was not allowed to join her duty. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, although, higher qualification was a bar at the relevant time but subsequently, Government has withdrawn the said bar. He submits that apart from the withdrawal by the Government this Hon'ble Court has also held that higher qualification is no bar for the Anganwadi Karmee. Learned advocate has stated in his writ petition that a similarly circumstanced lady, namely, Sanchita Sen's appointment as an Anganwadi worker was terminated having had pressed higher qualification but on a challenge to the same by an order dated 16th May, 2012 passed in W.P.10240(W) of 2012, this Hon'ble Court quashed the order of termination and her appointment was revived. A copy of the said order has been annexed by the writ petitioner as Annexure P-7. The said order refers to a Special Bench decision in the case of Rina Dutta & Ors. Vs. Anjali Mahato & Ors., 2010 2 CalLJ 321. This Hon'ble Court held

(3.) From the decision as above it appears that non-mentioning of the higher qualification does not disqualify or penalize a graduate woman for the concerned post. The learned advocate for the petitioner has also relied on a judgment in the case of Madhuri Roy & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., 2013 3 WbLR 560. By citing the said judgment the learned advocate draws the attention of the Court to paragraph 11 which says that the State Government being the employer can make a rule providing disqualification for candidate possessing higher qualification than the prescribed qualification. But since the reasonableness of such guidelines has been challenged the State Government being the employer should justify why the said restriction mentioned in the advertisement should be regarded as a valid restriction. This Hon'ble Court observed that the State Government subsequently modified its earlier guidelines relating to qualification of Anganwadi Karmee and in the modified guidelines it has been made clear that all graduates and higher qualified candidates would be eligible for the post of Anganwadi Karmee and further it has been mentioned that there will be no bar on educational qualification for a candidate applied for a post of Anganwadi worker. Para 11 of the said judgment is quoted below: