Judgment :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. The petitioner’s grievance emanated from a selection process initiated for the engagement to the post of Block “ASHA Facilitator” under the Khatra Sub- Division, District- Bankura, pursuant to Memo No. 3068 dated 7th October 2015. The said notification invited applications on a contractual basis and prescribed the eligibility criteria, mode of selection and assessment. The petitioner applied within the stipulated time, was found eligible, and her name appeared in the list of eligible candidate. She participated in the written and computer test held on 13th December 2015.

2. Despite the existence of vacancies, particularly in the Raipur Block, engagement letter was not issued to the petitioner. Representations by the petitioner and another candidate seeking consideration against the remaining vacancies remained unattended. The petitioner contended that the selection process initiated in October 2015 was neither formally concluded nor cancelled.

3. While the process remained unresolved, a subsequent notification being Memo No. 513/G dated 9th February, 2016 was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khatra inviting fresh applications. The petitioner alleged that the issuance of the said notification deprived eligible candidates under the earlier process of an opportunity of consideration and led to appointments being made in excess of the notified vacancies and contrary to the merit list and reservation norms. It was further alleged that candidates placed lower in rank were engaged while those placed higher were excluded.

4. In response, the authorities filed affidavits, denying the allegations and stating that the petitioners were not eligible for appointment as per category wise merit. It was asserted that the subsequent notification was issued for filling up remaining vacancies and the selection process was completed after scrutiny and approval by the competent authority. The pleadings, however, disclosed inconsistencies in the preparation of eligible and rejected list and in the number of appointments granted.

5. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WP No. 4770(W) of 2000, pursuant to which directions were issued for taking steps in respect of the remaining vacancies. Alleging non-compliance with the said order, the petitioner initiated contempt proceedings being CPAN No. 748 of 2016. During the contempt proceedings, affidavits of complaints were filed stating that appointments had since been granted.

6. Considering the materials placed, this Court declined to proceed further in contempt and dropped the contempt application while granting liberty to the petitioners to challenge their exclusion from engagement and impugned selection process by initiating appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

7. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the entire grievance of the petitioner traced its origin to the failure of the respondent authorities to lawfully conclude the selection process initiated by notification dated 7th October 2015. It was contended that the said notification was never cancelled, withdrawn, or formally brought to an end nor were the eligible candidates, including the petitioner informed in writing that the process stood abandoned.

8. It was submitted despite the subsistence of the earlier notification, a subsequent notification dated 9th February 2016 was issued for filling up the remaining vacancies. According to the Learned Advocate for the petitioner, such action deprived the earlier eligible candidates of an opportunity of consideration and resulted in appointments being granted contrary to the notified process. The petitioner asserted that the subsequent notification could not have been used to fill up the vacancies arising from the earlier notification without expressly cancelling the same.

9. The Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the selection process revealed apparent inconsistencies. Instances were pointed out w