Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Lapita Banerji, J.
Dolan Mukherjee & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.A No. 3566 of 2022
Decided On : 31-01-2023
ANGWADI WORKERS - APPOINTMENT - SELECTION LIST - ELIGIBILITY - Judicial Review - Scope - Administrative decision - Setting aside - Power of Court - Petitioners applied for engagement as Anganwadi Workers and Helpers in an Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme in the Government quota/Home quota. Initially, 28 candidates applied for the said posts. The initial list of 28 candidates was sent by the Director to District Programme Officer (ICDS), Purulia on February 25, 2020. Subsequently, a second list containing names of candidates was forwarded by the Director on January 19, 2021. 15 candidates were appointed pursuant to the second list of eligible candidates dated January 19, 2021. The said 15 candidates were given appointment in home quota pursuant to an office memo dated February 15, 2022, published by the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), ICDS Project-Kasipur, District-Purulia. The petitioners made representations on January 22, 2021 inquiring about the fate of their appointments, pursuant to the first list sent by the Director of ICDS on February 25, 2020. Thereafter, the petitioners again reiterated their prayers on January 13, 2022 for their engagement as Anganwadi workers/helpers. Upon learning that candidates from a latter list/panel of candidates dated January 19, 2021 were given letters of appointment/engagement, they agitated their grievances before the Director in January 2022. No reply to the said representations of the petitioners was received by them. Since the petitioners were neither engaged nor informed the reason why candidates from a latter list of candidates were engaged, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners applied for engagement as Anganwadi Workers and Helpers in an Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme in the Government quota/Home quota. The petitioners were found to be eligible for appointment from the first list of candidates dated February 25, 2020. However, the Director of ICDS recommended the appointment of 15 candidates from the second list dated January 19, 2021, bypassing the first list. The petitioners challenged the appointment of candidates from the second list, contending that it was arbitrary and illegal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Director of ICDS failed to provide any reason for appointing the candidates from the second list and not from the first list. The Court held that the State/respondents have spectacularly failed to give any reason for appointing the candidates from the second list and not from the first list who had a reasonable expectation to be appointed. Furthermore, the state also failed to provide any reason, leave aside a justifiable reason for not filling up of all the vacancies.
Issues: 1. Whether the appointment of candidates from the second list was arbitrary and illegal? 2. Whether the petitioners had a reasonable expectation to be appointed from the first list?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the appointment of candidates from the second list was arbitrary and illegal as the Director of ICDS failed to provide any reason for bypassing the first list. 2. The Court held that the petitioners had a reasonable expectation to be appointed from the first list as they were found to be eligible for appointment.
Final Decision: The Court directed that the petitioners, whose names appeared in the first list dated February 25, 2020 and subsequently recommended as eligible candidates on February 8, 2021, to be appointed immediately and not later than 3 weeks from date to the posts of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers in Integrated Child Development Services, Purulia in the Home Quota.
JUDGMENT
Lapita Banerji, J. - The petitioners applied for engagement as Anganwadi Workers and Helpers in an Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme in the Government quota/Home quota. Initially, 28 candidates applied for the said posts. The initial list of 28 candidates was sent by the Director to District Programme Officer (ICDS), Purulia on February 25, 2020. Subsequently, a second list containing names of candidates was forwarded by the Director on January 19, 2021. 15 candidates were appointed pursuant to the second list of eligible candidates dated January 19, 2021. The said 15 candidates were given appointment in home quota pursuant to an office memo dated February 15, 2022, published by the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), ICDS Project-Kasipur, District-Purulia. The said information was received pursuant to an application made under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by some of the petitioners on January 27, 2022.
2. The petitioners made representations on January 22, 2021 inquiring about the fate of their appointments, pursuant to the first list sent by the Director of ICDS on February 25, 2020. Thereafter, the petitioners again reiterated their prayers on January 13, 2022 for their engagement as Anganwadi workers/helpers. Upon learning that candidates from a latter list/panel of candidates dated January 19, 2021 were given letters of appointment/engagement, they agitated their grievances before the Director in January 2022. No reply to the said representations of the petitioners was received by them. Since the petitioners were neither engaged nor informed the reason why candidates from a latter list of candidates were engaged, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.
3. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the engagement of all the 15 candidates from the second list of candidates dated January 19, 2021 is arbitrary and illegal. What necessitated the preparation of a second list of candidates has not been explained by the respondent authorities, pending the engagement of the Candidates from the first list. The Director of ICDS by an office memo dated August 19, 2021 recommended the appointment of 15 candidates from the second list without giving any explanation as to why the eligible candidates from the first list were not recommended for appointment. Pursuant to the recommendation of the respondent no. 4/Director of ICDS, the aforesaid 15 candidates were given appointment on February 15, 2022 by the CDPO/the respondent no. 6.
4. Mr. S.N Mookherji, learned Advocate General of the State submitted that out of the list forwarded on February 25, 2020, 8 candidates were found to be eligible by the District Programme Officer on February 8, 2021 and out of the list dated January 19, 2021 forwarded by the Director, 15 candidates were found eligible for appointment on February 8, 2021 by the District Programme Officer. The District Programme Officer found 15 candidates to be eligible from the second list. It was within the power of the Director ICDS to recommend the name of a candidate, as long as she met the eligibility criteria. It is nobody's case that the candidates who were engaged by the CDPO from the second list were not eligible. He submitted that once candidates are chosen from a list of eligible candidates, the Court in Judicial Review should not exercise its power for setting aside of an administrative decision.
5. He referred to a decision reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47 (Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India), for the proposition that the successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed. On selection the candidates do not acquire any right to the post. The State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate.
6. He next referred to a decision reported in (2001) 6 SCC 380 (All India SC & ST Employees Association and Another Vs. A. Arthur Jeen and Others), for the
The State/respondents have spectacularly failed to give any reason for appointing the candidates from the second list and not from the first list who had a reasonable expectation to be appointed. Fur....
Anganwadi Workers selected for Supervisor posts are entitled to substantive appointments and benefits retroactively from their initial engagement date, regardless of contractual arrangements.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
