Tuhina Khatun (Bibi) v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

May 2, 2023 Sl. No.7 Court No.19 s.biswas WPA 8072 of 2023 Tuhina Khatun (Bibi) vs.

The State of West Bengal and others Mr. Dipanjan Chatterjee, Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bhattacharjee, Ms. Sahina Khatun ... for the petitioner Mr. Rezaul Hossain ... for the State Ms. Ananya Neogi ... for the respondent no.5 Perused the report filed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barasat Sub-Division. The queries of the Court have been answered. Both the petitioner and the respondent no.5 were eligible and appeared at the interview.

The petitioner obtained 48.60 as the academic score upon grant of 90% weightage to the marks obtained in the madhyamik examination. In the viva voce, the petitioner obtained 4.80 marks. Thus, the petitioner obtained 54.40 marks in total in the selection process. The respondent no.5 obtained 50.29 upon grant of 90% weightage to the marks obtained in the madhyamik examination and 5.40 marks in the viva voce interview. Thus, the respondent no.5 obtained 55.69 marks in total, in the selection process.

The authority did not give any additional benefit to the petitioner as a member of a self-help group on the ground that both the petitioner and the respondent no.5 were found eligible to appear at the

interview and the respondent no.5 had obtained higher marks.

In terms of clause D.5 of the Revised Guidelines for Selection of ASHAs of 2012, the said clause was subject to the selection criteria as per clause B. The authority did not find it necessary to give any other preference as the respondent no.5 had obtained higher marks.

The contention of the petitioner that the respondent no.5 belonged to Beraberia and the petitioner belonged to Purba Beraberia (service area of ASHA), is also not established.

The documents of the petitioner, namely, voter card, the SHG membership certificate, etc. indicate that the petitioner is also a resident of Beraberia just like the respondent no.5. The voter list which gives constituency wise names of the electorate, cannot be considered to be proof of residence.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of without any orders.

All the parties are directed to act on the basis of server copy of this order.

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)