Manika Mahato v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

18.04.2023 Court No. 19 Item no.15 CP WPA No. 8424 of 2023 Manika Mahato Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Ivan Roy Mr. Nirupam Dutta ... for the Petitioner.

Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharya Mr. S. Roychoudhury ... for the State.

Affidavit of service is taken on record.

Despite service, none appears on behalf of the respondent no. 9.

As this court is not inclined to pass any mandatory directions as prayed for, but deems it fit to relegate the matter to the appropriate authority to dispose of the demand of justice filed on behalf of the petitioner, this writ petition is taken up in the absence of the respondent no. 9.

The petitioner appeared at a recruitment process for appointment of Asha under Pandarma Sub-Centre at Village - Pandarma within the Purulia -I Block. The petitioner submits that as no panel had been published, the petitioner is in the dark as to whether her candidature had been considered in terms of the Regulation of 2012, or not. Further contention is that the respondent no. 9 was

appointed without assessment of the merits of the candidates.

Ms. Bhattacharya, leaned advocate for the State respondents, submits that the contention of the petitioner cannot not be accepted. The fact that the petitioner was called for the interview, itself indicates that the candidature of the petitioner had been taken into consideration. The petitioner might have not secured the highest marks. There was only one vacant post of Asha and the respondent no. 9 was selected as the person securing the highest marks. Be that as it may, as the petitioner has raised a disputed question with regard to allotment of marks, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the Sub-Divisional Officer, Purulia Sadar to dispose of the demand of justice filed on behalf of the petitioner dated February 22, 2023, in accordance with law.

The authority shall intimate the petitioner the marks obtained by the selected candidate and the petitioner. The details of the panel that was prepared shall be also intimated.

This court has not gone into the merits of the allegations involved in the writ petition.

reasoned order shall be passed and communicated.

The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs.

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

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)