Smt Seema Mistry And ORS v. Union Of India And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/731/2023 Smti. Seema Mistry and Others.

Vs.

Union of India and Others Mr. Ravi Shankar ... for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 March 21, 2024 [AKB] Item No.2 This matter was extensively heard on March 15, 2024 in presence of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and the learned advocate appearing for respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. The petitioners concluded their argument. Mr. G. Ravi Shankar, learned advocate, however, prayed for time to produce the records pertaining to the relevant selection process. Today no one appears for the petitioners even in the second call. Since the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners concluded his submission on March 15, 2024, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition on merit in absence of the learned advocate for the petitioners.

The indisputable facts involved in this case are as follows. Petitioners are presently working as Anganwadi Helper in the office of Child Development Project Officer, Rangat, Middle Andaman. Following an advertisement dated January 31, 2023, they applied for the post of "Anganwadi Worker". The selection was made on the basis of walk in interview amongst the prospective candidates. The minimum educational qualification for the post of Anganwadi Worker was class 12th pass.

While petitioner no. 1 has passed class 12th examination, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are class 10 pass.

The petitioner no. 1 applied for a post under Katai Dera, Anganwadi Centre. From the documents produced by Mr. G. Ravi Shankar today before this Court, it appears that total five candidates applied for the said Centre. The selected candidate namely, Sudabi Bairagi scored 86 in the interview conducted by a

duly constituted selection committee while the score of petitioner no. 1 in the interview was 52.

It is also apparent that petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were not qualified to come within the zone of consideration. In the aforesaid facts, it cannot be said that the respondent authorities acted in an arbitrary or illegal manner in not appointing the petitioners as Anganwadi Worker. It was, however, submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners that in some cases, the respondent authorities had relaxed the educational qualification of some candidates and appointed them. He placed reliance on the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioners.

The said candidates who had been allegedly selected after granting age relaxation are not party to this proceeding, and in the writ petition, nothing has been pleaded in this regard. In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, I grant liberty upon the petitioners to file a fresh writ petition in accordance with law urging the points available to them.

Accordingly, WPA/731/2023 is dismissed.

( Kausik Chanda, J. )