Back
2020 Supreme(Cal) 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
AMRITA SINHA, J.
Nure Shobha Begum & Another - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Others - Respondent
WP. Nos. 17548 (W) of 2019 & 6879 (W) of 2011
Decided On : 14-02-2020
Rina Banerjee, Susmita Chowdhury, Arjun Ray Mukherjee, Debasish Chattopadhyay, Bibek Jyoti Basu, Uttam Kr. De, Kalimuddin Mondal, Bipin Ghosh, Advocates.
Timely action and diligence in pursuing legal remedies are crucial in challenging selection processes and residency requirements.
Headnote:
Residency - ASHA Appointment - The National Rural Health Mission Guidelines, The Limitation Act, 1963, Article 137, Rule 53 of the Appellate Side Rules of the High Court at Calcutta - The court discussed the residency requirement for the appointment of ASHA, the limitation period for filing applications, and the applicability of civil procedure rules in Article 226 proceedings. The court emphasized the importance of timely action and the consequences of delay in challenging selection processes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the selection of the respondent for the ASHA post based on residency requirements. The respondent filed a separate writ petition seeking a direction for the issuance of the appointment letter. The court considered the delay in the proceedings, the residency issue, and the validity of the selection process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in the proceedings and the petitioner's conduct indicated an attempt to stall the appointment of the successful candidate. The court also emphasized the importance of timely action and the consequences of delay in challenging selection processes.
Issues: Residency requirement, Delay in proceedings, Validity of selection process
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of timely action and the consequences of delay in challenging selection processes. It also highlighted the need for diligence in pursuing legal remedies.
Final Decision: The court directed the completion of the selection process by issuing the appointment letter to the successful candidate within four weeks. The earlier writ petition was dismissed, and the later writ petition was disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
1. Writ petition 6879 (W) of 2011 was filed by Shakila Bibi @ Khatun praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus inter alia praying for not giving effect to the impugned order dated 4th March, 2011 passed by the District Magistrate, Birbhum rejecting her representation.
2. The said Shakila Bibi challenged the selection of Nure Shobha Begum the private respondent no. 7 in the said writ petition, in the post of ASHA on the ground that she was not the resident of the village in which the ASHA will be engaged.
3. In compliance of a direction passed by this court on 3rd February, 2011 in WP No. 20009 (w) of 2010 filed by Shakila Bibi the District Magistrate, Birbhum considered the matter and after hearing the submissions made on behalf of all the necessary parties passed the impugned order on 14th March, 2011 whereby he was of the opinion that the empanelment of Nure Shobha Begum in serial no. 1 of the panel prepared for engagement of ASHA in village Bahirgora, under Hassan II Gram Panchayat was justified and proper and the allegation of the petitioner that the private respondent was not a resident of the village where the ASHA was to be appointed was negated. The District Magistrate was of the firm opinion that the private respondent was the resident of the village concerned and he held that the empanelment was made after observing all the terms and conditions of the advertisement.
4. The primary contention of Shakila is that on the date of the advertisement Nure Shobha neither had a ration card nor a voter's card in support of her residency in respect of the area where the ASHA was to be appointed. According to Shakila the private respondent Nure Shobha procured the essential documents required for engagement after the selection process was over and as such, the District Magistrate ought not to have permitted Nure Shobha to rely upon the said documents. As per Shakila the respondent ought to engage her being the second empanelled candidate in the post in question as she had all the relevant documents in support of her residency.
5. As the writ petition filed by Shakila remained pending for a considerable period of time and the appointment letter was not issued in favour of the private respondent Nure Shobha Begum even though there was no order from the court restraining the issuance of the letter of appointment, accordingly, the private respondent Nure Shobha Begum filed a separate writ petition being W.P. No. 17548 (W) of 2019 praying for a direction upon the respondent authority to issue the letter of appointment in her favour.
6. The matter was very hotly contested by the parties. A report has been filed by the Block Medical Officer of Health wherein it has been mentioned that the State Mission Director, National Rural Health Mission and ex-officio Social Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare vide memo dated 11th December, 2006 framed a detailed implementation guideline for selection of Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHA). The Health and Family Welfare Samity, Rampurhat-II Block invited applications from eligible intending candidates vide memo dated 8th November, 2007 for appointment of ASHA in Hassan-II Gram Panchayat, Birbhum. After the selection process was over the Block Health and Family Welfare Samity, Rampurhat-II published a panel of selected candidates on 25th February, 2020. Nure Shobha Begum secured the first position in the panel and Shakila Bibi secured the second position.
7. The said Shakila Bibi challenged the validity of the selection process in a writ petition being W.P. No. 20009 (W) 2010 (Shakila Bibi alias Khatun -vs- State of West Bengal & Ors.). The said writ petition was heard and disposed of by this court on 3rd February, 2011 whereby the District Magistrate was directed to consider the representation made by Shakila Bibi in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to all necessary parties and to pass a reasoned order therein.
8. In compliance of the order the impugned or
