Form J(2) Sl.No.7& 8

Sc

In the High Court at Calcutta

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Roy

WPA 9187 OF 2024 Anita Mahato & Anr.

…. Petitioners

VS.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

….Respondents

WITH

WPA 9188 OF 2024

Khukumani Mahato & Ors.

…. Petitioners

VS.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

….Respondents

For the Petitioners

in both writ petitions:

Mr. Subhadip Pramanik

Mr. Amit Ranjan Pati Mr. Sunayan Ghosh Mr. Avijit Chatterjee

Ms. Swastika Chowdhury.

….Advocates

For the Respondents/State

in both writ petitions:

Mr. Tulsi Das Roy

Ms. Sabnam De Bardhan,Jr.Govt.Adv

Mr. Bipin Ghosh.

…..Advocates

Heard on : October 27, 2025 Judgment on : October 27, 2025 Aniruddha Roy, J. :

1. Five individual writ petitioners collectively in these two writ petitions applied for engagement as Anganwari Workers and Anganwari Helpers in an Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS Scheme) in the Government/Home Quota. Similarly placed candidates with the identical grievance for not receiving the appointments have filed a previous writ petition being WPA 3566 of 2022. By a judgment dated January 31, 2023 the writ petition was allowed, Annexure-P6 at page 56 to WPA 9188 of 2024. No appeal was carried out by the State from the said judgment. The record in these two writ petitions/the reports filed by the State shows those petitioners have already been engaged pursuant to the direction of the coordinate Bench.

2. The relevant portion of the said judgment containing the submissions of the then learned Advocate General for the State is quoted bellow :

“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.”

3. The relevant finding of the coordinate Bench, inter alia, on the basis of the said submission made on behalf of the State from the said judgment is also quoted below :

“10.*****************************************************

**************************************************** ****************************************************

**********

d. No reason was provided by the Director of ICDS for his pick and choose policy of recommending the names of 15 candidates for engagement from the second list only. Why the candidates who were found eligible from the first list that was forwarded almost one year before the second list of candidates, were not considered for appointment has not been explained either in the recommendation made on August 19, 2021 or in the Report filed by the respondent no. 4/the Director, pursuant to the directions passed by this Court on November 15, 2022. The only issue that has been urged in the said Report is with regard to the fact that the Anganwadi workers (AWW) and the Anganwadi Helpers (AWH) have different causes of action and the writ petition is not maintainable for joinder of causes of action.”

4. The relevant direction of the coordinate Bench from the said judgment is quoted below :

“11. In the light of discussions above, this Court directs 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 o