( 1 ) IN all these cases, the Petitioners have prayed that the Respondents be mandated to appoint them on the post of Auxiliary Nurse-cum-Midwife (ANM)in the different Health sub-centers fur which they had applied. ( 2 ) ALL the above Writ Petitions have been heard together as they involve two (2) common questions. They are :- (a) Whether, the action of the Respondents in giving preference to those who passed the School Final Examination in their first attempt and screening out those who had appeared as compartmental Candidates, can be said to he illegal and/or, arbitrary/unreasonable ?; and (b) Whether, having not indicated in the Advertisement that compartmental Candidates would be screened out, are the respondents estopped from subsequently adopting such a procedure ? ( 3 ) IN all these cases the common facts are that each of the Petitioners have stated that they applied for the post of Auxiliary Nurse-cum-Midwife (hereinafter referred to as ANM) for the different Health sub-centers under their respective Gram Panchayats of the Gangarampur Block. They have each stated that they successfully passed their School-final (Madhyamik)Examinations and thereafter, they got their names enrolled with the respective district Employment Exchanges. They have brought on record their Mark-sheets which go to show that all of them passed the said exams only in their second attempt when they appeared as Compartmental Candidates. ( 4 ) THEY have further stated that an Advertisement was published by the Government of West Bengal, Department of Health and Family Welfare notifying their intention of recruiting Auxiliary Nurse-cum-Midwives for the gangarampur Block having 11 Anchals. There were 33 posts and therefore, each Gram Panchyat had three (3) vacancies. The Petitioners applied and appeared in the qualifying tests. Thereafter, by a letter, the Chairman, Block level Screening Committee-cum-Block Development Officer, Gangarampur development Block directed the Petitioners to appear in his Office on the dates mentioned in his letter together with till their original Testimonials and Attested copies thereof. ( 5 ) THE Petitioners complied and on being satisfied, they were subsequently asked to appear for the Medical Tests. They appeared for the said tests and they were found fit. ( 5 ) THE Petitioners complied and on being satisfied, they were subsequently asked to appear for the Medical Tests. They appeared for the said tests and they were found fit. They then even submitted Bonds for purposes of training but subsequently when they went to the Office of the Block development Officer, they came to learn for the first time that by a Letter No. 70 (2)/c (ADM)/2007 issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Dakshin dinajpur, Balurghat, the B. D. O. , Gangarampur Development Block was informed that the Selection Committee had selected candidates on the basis of clearing Madhyamik or equivalent Examinations in the first chance/attempt. ( 6 ) ALTHOUGH the Petitioners have merely referred to the aforementioned letter in their Writ Petitions but the learned Counsel appearing for the State produced a Photocopy of the same before this Court. The said Letter is dated 13/04/2007 and it reads as follows :- GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT magistrate, DAKSH1n DINAJPUR : balurghat. ??????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????? No. 70 (2)/c (ADM)/2007 ??????????????????????????????????????????????? Dated, Balurghat , the ??????????????????? ????????????????????????????? April 13, 2007 From : ? The District Magistrate Dakshin Dinajpur , Balurghat. To : ????? 1. ? The Block Development Officer, Gangarampur Development Block, 2. ?? The Block Development Officer, Tapan Development Block; ??????????????????????? Sub : 2nd ANM Recruitment. With reference to your clarification regarding recruitment of 2nd A. N. M. on contractual basis for different Health Centres of Gangarampur and Tapan Development Blocks respectively, The Selection Committee for recruitment of 2nd A. N. M. selected 33 in Gangarampur Block and 41 in Tapan Block. In the first instance, the committee selected on the basis of clearing Madhyamik or equivalent examination in the first chance/ attempt. The Selection committee unanimously prepared the list accordingly and sent the same to the Health Department administratively for according approval. The Health Department approved the entire list. On set of criteria i. e. pass in the first chance has been decided by the Selection Committee in consultation with the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dakshin Dinajpur and based on this Health Department has sent approval for appointment of the selected candidates as 2nd A. N. M. in different Health Centers of the concerned Blocks. Once approved no one can disapprove the same on any other grounds because there is no scope of ambiguity in the matter. This may be strictly adhered to. Once approved no one can disapprove the same on any other grounds because there is no scope of ambiguity in the matter. This may be strictly adhered to. K. C. Mandal. Addl. District Magistrate Dakshin Dinajpur , Balurghat. 13. 4. 2007 [sic- but highlighting by bold, italicized and underlined fonts-is by this Court] ( 7 ) LET the said Letter be retained with the records of the case. In some of the cases Supplementary Affidavits have been filed bringing on record the Newspaper publications on the basis whereof the Petitioners had applied. ( 8 ) IN W. P. No. 7689 (W) of 2007, filed by Pratima Sarkar (Bhuimali), the Respondents have filed an Affidavit-in-opposition wherein they have stated, inter alia, as follows :- "admittedly the Petitioner passed the Madhyamik Pariksha Examination in the year 1998 without having any division. It appears from the copies of the mark-sheet annexed in the writ application that the petitioner sat for the Madhyamik Examination in the year 1996 but she was plucked in Science Group as such the result of the petitioner was declared as compartmental. The petitioner sat for the Compartmental Examination in the Science Group in the year 1997 but the petitioner again could not pass the Compartmental Examination in the Science Group subject. The petitioner thereafter appeared at the Compartmental Examination for the subject in Science Group in the year 1998 and the petitioner was declared pass. It is thus, clear that the petitioner passed the Madhyamik pariksha in the third chance/attempt. There is no dispute that the petitioner was not awarded any division. There are several conditions required to be considered for selection of a candidate for provisional admission for training for ANM Course. One of the condition stipulated in the advertisement is that candidate shall be selected on the basis of merit in respect of the education and other qualification as mentioned. In such view of the matter A norm was considered to be fit and proper to the effect that the candidate having passed the Madhyamik Examination in the first chance/attempt should be considered preferable than the candidates having passed such examination in the second or third chance/attempt. In fact on the issue of merit there is nothing wrong if preference is given to a candidate having passed the Madhyamik pariksha in the first chance/attempt than the candidate having passed such examination with compartmental with two/three chance/attempt. In fact on the issue of merit there is nothing wrong if preference is given to a candidate having passed the Madhyamik pariksha in the first chance/attempt than the candidate having passed such examination with compartmental with two/three chance/attempt. It goes without saying that a candidate having third division is definitely bette'r than the candidate hawing no division but passed with compartmental wither in second attempt or third attempt. It is correct that the petitioner was called for the medical test and also for furnishing the bond but all such actions were taken upon wrong understanding of the issue regards consideration of merit in respect of educational qualification. A compartmental passed candidate even if obtains higher percentage of marks on calculation than that of candidate having passed the examination with third division cannot be judged as more meritorious on the result point of view. In such view of the matter thejprocess of selection and the criteria as followed to select the candidates on merit are not at all unreasonable, unjustified. There is no discrimination in such actions of the authorities, had the petitioner been selected ultimately in depriving the legitimate claim of a candidate having passed the examination in first chance, a wrong message would have been conveyed inviting strong criticism from all corners of the society. Having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case above the purported grievance of the petitioner are thoroughly misconceived, baseless and devoid of any substance or merit and consequently the petitioner is not entitled to have the direction for consideration of his grievances by the authorities. " [ SIC ] ( 9 ) SIMILARLY, in W. P. No. 7690 (W) of 2007, filed by Anjali Pahan, the respondents have also filed their Affidavit-in-Opposition in which they have, inter alia, stated as follows :- "admittedly the petitioner passed the Madhyamik Pariksha/examination in the year 1995 without having any division. It appears from the copies of the mark-sheet annexed to the writ application that the petitioner sat for the Madhyamik Examination in the year 1994 but she was plucked in Science Group/language Group as such the result of the petitioner was declared as compartmental. The petitioner sat for the compartmental examination in the Science Group/language Group in the year 1995 but the petitioner again could not pass the compartmental examination in the Science Group/language Group subject. The petitioner sat for the compartmental examination in the Science Group/language Group in the year 1995 but the petitioner again could not pass the compartmental examination in the Science Group/language Group subject. It is thus clear that the petitioner passed the Madhyamik Pariksha in the second chance/attempt. There is no dispute that the petitioner was not awarded any division. There are several conditions required to be considered for selection of a candidate for provisional admission from training for ANM Course. One of conditions stipulated in the advertisement is that the candidate shall be selected on the basis of merit in respect of the education and other qualification as mentioned in such view of the matter a norm was considered to be fit and proper to the effect that the candidates having passed the Madhyamik Examination in the first chance/attempt should be considered preferable than the candidates having passed such examination in the second chance/attempt. In fact on the issue of merit there is nothing wrong if preference is given to a candidate having passed the Madhyamik Pariksha in the first chance/attempt than the candidate having passed such examination with compartmental with two/three chance attempt. It goes without saying that a candidate having third division is definitely better than the candidate having no division but passed with compartmental in the second attempt. It is correct that the petitioner was called for the medical test and also for furnishing the bond but all such actions were taken upon wrong understanding of the issue as regards consideration of merit in respect of educational qualification. A compartmenlal passed candidate even if obtains higher percentage of marks on calculation Khan that of candidate having passed the examination with third division cannot be judged as more meritorious on the result point of view. In such view of the matter the process of selection and the criteria as followed to select the candidates on merit are not at all unreasonable, unjustified. There is no discriminalion in such action of the authorities. Had the petitioner been selected ultimately in depriving the legitimate claim of a candidate having passed the examination in first chance, a wrong message would have been conveyed inviting strong criticism from all corners of the society. There is no discriminalion in such action of the authorities. Had the petitioner been selected ultimately in depriving the legitimate claim of a candidate having passed the examination in first chance, a wrong message would have been conveyed inviting strong criticism from all corners of the society. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case above the purported grievance of the petitioners are thoroughly misconceived, baseless and devoid of any substance or merit and consequently the petitioner is not entitled to have the direction for consideration of his grievance by the authorities. " [sic] ( 10 ) UPON a perusal of the aforementioned facts it is evident that none of the Petitioners passed their School Final Examination in the first attempt. Each one of them passed theiir School Final Examinations after appearing as "compartmental" candidates. ( 11 ) IN any process of selection which involves selection on merits, if the Selector desires to select the best of candidates, he is free to do so and therefore, such a desire, by itself, cannot toe said to be an unreasonable desire. Consequently, a decision, to "screen out" those who had failed in their first attempts and could pass their School-final Examinations as "compartmental" candidates in their second attempt, must be approved as being a reasonable method adopted to select the best. This Court is further of the view that whenever selections are made, it is always necessary to see as to whether the process of selection that has been resorted to is transparent or not. In the event it is found that a reasonable procedure has been adopted by way of giving preference to candidates who had passed in their first attempt and giving less importance to Compartmental candidates, such a procedure cannot, ipso facto, be said to be unreasonable. ( 12 ) LET it be recorded that tin Clause 8 of the Advertisement, the words "yogyata" has been used. In other words, the merit and/or the "yogyata" of the candidate was an essential criteria that was supposed to have been considered. Looking at the Advertisement, which has been brought on record through supplementary Affidavits, it is evident that in Clause 8. it was clearly indicated that selection would be based purely on merit and based on the marks obtained by the candidates in the Madhyamik/equivalent examinations. Looking at the Advertisement, which has been brought on record through supplementary Affidavits, it is evident that in Clause 8. it was clearly indicated that selection would be based purely on merit and based on the marks obtained by the candidates in the Madhyamik/equivalent examinations. In this context, while Clause-8 of the Advertisement lays down that "shilkkhagato ebong onyanyo joggola (jaa aagey bola hoechhey)-eir bhittetary prarthideir bachhai kora hobey", Clause -5. on the other hand. provides that "prarthideir Madhyamik Uttrao Baa Shomotullo Maaner Hotey hobey". Both these Clauses, read together, obviously mean that selection was to be based entirely on the inter se merits of the Candidates who had applied qua their perfprmance in the Madhyamik or equivalent Examinations. Therefore, while considering as to who is more meritorious, if the Respondents find that there are candidates, who have passed their School Final Examinati6ns in their first attempt while there are others who passed the said examinations in more than more one attempt and that too, as compartmental candidates, then in such circumstances, the Respondents have the right to select those who have passed in their first attempt. ( 13 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this Court is of the view that the Letter referred to by the Petitioners in all the cases being letter dated 13. 4. 2007 issued under memo No. 70 (2)/c (ADM)/2007 quoted above, and which was produced by the learned Counsel for the State, is fully justified. Moreover, from the very opening line of the said letter (highlighted by bold, italieized and underlined fonts), it will appear that it was issued as a mere clarification. Consequently, the argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners to the effect that the Respondents are estopped from adopting a procedure subsequent to the Advertisement is wholly misconceived because there was no subsequent change in the procedure, as has been argued. All that the said letter did was to only clarify and remind the selectors that they cannot lose track of the merits of the candidates in terms of the Advertisement which has already clearly indicated that selection would be based purely on the merits of the candidates qua their performance in the Madhyamik or equivalent examinations. This is the view of this Court. Moreover, the law of estoppel cannot be applied in a case which will have the effect of forcing the Selectors to select Candidates who are less meritorious. This is the view of this Court. Moreover, the law of estoppel cannot be applied in a case which will have the effect of forcing the Selectors to select Candidates who are less meritorious. That apart, the law of estoppel cannot also be applied against the respondents because this Court has already held that the Respondents adopted a fair procedure. ( 14 ) LEARNED Counsel then argued that the aforementioned Letter is dated 13. 4. 2007 and therefore, this is a clear evidence to establish that it was a decision adopted after the Advertisement which had indicated the last date of submission of the filled up Forms by 28th October 2007. Consequently, he argued, that the Respondents cannot be. allowed to change the terms and conditions of the Advertisement by a simple letter of an Additional District magistrate. This Court is of the view that Respondents have not challenged the terms and conditions at all because the entire selection was supposed to be based on inter se merits of candidates. The word "merit" was already indicated in the advertisement and therefore, such an argument is totally misconceived. ( 15 ) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioners then himself produced a letter dated 11. 10. 2006 issued under the signature of the Addl. Chief Secretary, govt. of West Bengal, Deptt. of Health and Family Welfare under Memo No. D. O. No. HSL (Misc) 175 (5)/06 in support of his contention that the Addl. District magistrate, Dakshin Dinajpur, Balurghat had no authority to issue the aforementioned letter quoted above being the Letter dated 13. 4. 2007 because the entire policy was already circulated by the Additional Chief Secretary,by his said Letter dated 11. 10. 2006 addressed to the District Magistrate, Malda. Let this Letter be also retained with the records of the case. ( 16 ) SINCE Mr. Anjan Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the Petitioner in all the cases has produced a photocopy of that letter, this Court has noticed the same. Once again, the argument of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the Additional District Magistrate has not acted in any manner contrary to the directions of his superior. The Additional Chief secretary, had stated that the selection would be purely on merit basis on the marks obtained by the candidates in the Madhyamik or equivalent examination. The Additional Chief secretary, had stated that the selection would be purely on merit basis on the marks obtained by the candidates in the Madhyamik or equivalent examination. Paragraph-2 of that Letter says "we have advertised in the bengali dailies inviting applications from the prospective candidates. The selection would be purely on merit based on the marks obtained by the candidates in the Madhyamik or equivalent examination. " [sic] ( 17 ) THE submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners to the effect that the Respondents ought to have limited their activity of screening only to the marks obtained so as to come to a conclusion to who was more meritorious, is therefore not at all well founded. In fact, the letter dated 11. 10. 2006 referred to above and which was produced by himself, strengthens the case of the Respondents and totally negates the contentions of Mr. Anjan bhattacharyya. ( 18 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this Court rejects the contentions of the learned counsel for the Petitioners to the effect that the Respondents could not have adopted the criteria of giving weightage to Candidates who had passed School final Examinations in their first attempt. This is all the more so because this court is of the firm view and repeats that in the process of selection to a responsible post, the proposed employer of a proposed employee has every right to screen a candidate from every angle and in that process, such a proposed employer also has the right to adopt procedure by which he can filter and screen out "those candidates whose race to the goal was obstructed" in preference to "those who galloped ahead and achieved their goal unobstructed". The word "goal" used here denotes the School final examinations. ( 19 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, both the questions framed at the outset must be answered in the negative. Consequently, this Court holds that the respondents have not acted illegally or in an arbitrary and/or unreasonable manner in giving preference to those who passed the School Final Examinations in their first attempt nor have they committed any irregularity in screening out those who had appeared as Compartmental Candidates. The question of estoppel also does not arise against the Respondents in the facts and circumstances held above. ( 20 ) IN the result, all these cases are held to be bereft of any merit. Accordingly, they are all dismissed. The question of estoppel also does not arise against the Respondents in the facts and circumstances held above. ( 20 ) IN the result, all these cases are held to be bereft of any merit. Accordingly, they are all dismissed. However, in the fact and circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.