Yeasmin Begam v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

01.05.2023 Sl. No.15(ML) srm W.P.A. No. 7017 of 2023 Yeasmin Begam

Versus

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Saikat Chatterjee ....for the Petitioner.

Mr. Rezaul Hossain ...for the State-respondents.

Mr. Amal Kumar Banerjee ...for the Respondent No.5.

This writ petition has been filed, challenging the engagement of the respondent No.5 as an ASHA. According to the petitioner, the authorities had wrongly calculated the marks of the respondent No.5. The academic score, namely, 90% weightage to the marks obtained in the Madhyamik Examination had been wrongly calculated by giving the respondent No.5 the benefit of the marks obtained in the additional subject. Such benefit had not been given to the petitioner, it is contended.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Rampurhat, Birbhum, has filed a report. It appears that both the petitioner and the respondent No.7, upon scrutiny of all documents, were

found eligible to appear at the interview. The list of accepted and rejected candidates has also been published in the district's website. The marks obtained by the candidates in the additional subject were not taken into consideration while considering the 90% weightage. As a rule, only the total marks in the main subjects were to be taken into consideration in order to maintain parity amongst the candidates who passed the Madhyamik or equivalent examination. Even in the notice inviting applications/advertisement for the recruitment process, such classification had been granted.

The learned Advocate for the respondent No.5 has handed over a copy of the mark sheet of the respondent No.5 which indicates that the said respondent had obtained 374 out of 800. On the other hand, the petitioner obtained 357 out of 800. However, at the interview the respondent No.5 got lesser marks than the petitioner. However, upon taking into consideration 90% weightage to the marks obtained in the Madhyamik examination, it appears that the respondent No.5 had secured a total of 47.08 and the petitioner secured 46.86. Under such circumstances, the selection of the respondent No.5 has been found to be proper and nothing remains to be decided in the writ petition.

The report filed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the copy of the marks sheet of the respondent No.5 are taken on record.

The writ petition is disposed of without any orders. There shall be no order as to costs.

Parties are to act on the basis of the server copy of this order.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)