Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 779 (CAL)

Md. Suraborddin Khan v. State of West Bengal

2012-08-14

BISWANATH SOMADDER

body2012
JUDGMENT In terms of the order dated 6th August, 2012, the concerned Block Development Officer, who is also the Executive Officer of Berhampore Panchayat Samity, is personally present in Court. 2. On his behalf, learned advocate for the State appears and tenders unqualified apology for not complying with the order dated 17th July, 2012. He also prays for leave to file a report in the form of an affidavit, which may be taken on record. 3. After considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant application as well as the report in the form of an affidavit filed in Court today, it appears that the petitioner along with private respondent no.10 participated in the recruitment process on the basis of an advertisement dated 29th March, 2010, for the post of AYUSH doctor (Homoeopathic) for Bhakuri-II Gram Panchayat, which falls within the jurisdiction of Berhampore Panchayat Samity, situated in the district of Murshidabad. 4. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that although he had all the required qualifications and was a permanent resident of the locality, the private respondent no.10 had secured the appointment for the post-in-question. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, in terms of the notification dated 29th March, 2010, issued by the State Public Health Cell of West Bengal State Rural Development Agency, an applicant for the post of a part time AYUSH doctor in a Gram Panchayat level dispensary on contractual agreement under the National Rural Health Mission, is bound to follow the general instructions for candidates, as contained in the said notification, which contains, inter alia, the following clause: “Attested copy of the mark sheet and other certificates along with the age proof and permanent residential proof (Voter Identity Card) will have to be enclosed with application”. 5. It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that the private respondent no.10 never enclosed his Voter Identity Card along with his application, but was nevertheless selected for the post-in-question. 6. From the report in the form of an affidavit filed on behalf of the concerned Block Development Officer, it appears that the private respondent no.10 submitted photocopies of his Ration Card, residential certificate issued by the Pradhan of the local Gram Panchayat and residential certificate issued by the concerned Block Development Officer, to prove that he was a local resident. From the report in the form of an affidavit filed on behalf of the concerned Block Development Officer, it appears that the private respondent no.10 submitted photocopies of his Ration Card, residential certificate issued by the Pradhan of the local Gram Panchayat and residential certificate issued by the concerned Block Development Officer, to prove that he was a local resident. However, so far as the Voter Identity Card is concerned, it is specifically stated in the report in the form of an affidavit that a photocopy of the same was also submitted by the private respondent no.10, but later. 7. The learned advocate representing the private respondent no.10 submits that his client had provided sufficient evidence to prove that he was a local resident. He also submits that the private respondent no.10 had subsequently submitted a copy of the Voter Identity Card to the concerned authority. He also draws this Court’s attention to an order dated 9th August, 2010, passed in W. P. 10160 (W) of 2010, and submits that the respondent authorities had processed his client’s application on the basis of the said order dated 9th August, 2010, and his client’s selection for the post-in-question was based on the directions as contained in the order dated 9th August, 2010. 8. Before considering the respective contentions of the parties, it is necessary to ascertain as to what was specifically required by a candidate in order to prove his permanent residential status, in terms of the notification dated 29th March, 2010, whereby the post-in-question was advertised. The relevant clause, which has been quoted hereinbefore, clearly indicates that for proof of permanent residence, a Voter Identity Card was required to be enclosed with the application. 9. It is the admitted position that in the facts of the instant case, the private respondent no.10 never enclosed a copy of the Voter Identity Card with his application. He may have enclosed several other documents, but those documents were not even required, in terms of the notification dated 29th March, 2010. Whether the private respondent no.10 had applied for a Voter Identity Card before tendering his application for the post –in – question is wholly inconsequential. The relevant clause with regard to proof of permanent residence nowhere contemplates production of any proof of application for a Voter Identity Card to be tendered along with the application by a candidate. Whether the private respondent no.10 had applied for a Voter Identity Card before tendering his application for the post –in – question is wholly inconsequential. The relevant clause with regard to proof of permanent residence nowhere contemplates production of any proof of application for a Voter Identity Card to be tendered along with the application by a candidate. Now, coming to the submission made on behalf of the private respondent no.10 that the concerned respondent authority had acted in terms of the Court’s order, it may not be out of context to refer to the said order dated 9th August, 2010, passed in W.P. 10160 (W) of 2010, which is reproduced in its entirety hereinbelow. “As an application has been made pursuant to advertisement dated 1st April, 2010, the said application ought to be considered in accordance with law and subject to the petitioner’s satisfying all the eligibility criteria for appointment. Such application be considered by the respondent No.4 along with the applications of all other applicants. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of.” 10. A bare perusal of the above order, which appears to have been passed at the instance of the private respondent no.10 in a writ petition where the writ petitioner in the present matter was not even made a party, clearly indicates that his application was to be considered in accordance with law and subject to satisfying all the eligibility criteria required for appointment. As observed hereinbefore, the private respondent no.10 never fulfilled one of the essential eligibility criteria, and that is, proof of permanent residence on the basis of his Voter Identity Card, which, admittedly, he never enclosed along with his application, while applying for the post-in-question. 11. In such circumstances, as stated above, the appointment of the private respondent no.10 as an AYUSH doctor (Homoeopathic) for Bhakuri-II Gram Panchayat, within the jurisdiction of Berhampore Panchayat Samity, District – Murshidabad, is liable to be set aside and quashed and is accordingly set aside and quashed. 12. The respondent no.9, being the Block Development Officer, Berhampore Development Block, who is also the Executive Officer of Berhampore Panchayat Samity, shall take a decision in respect of engaging the writ petitioner for the post-in-question, subject to the petitioner fulfilling all eligibility criteria, as per notification dated 29th March, 2010. 13. 12. The respondent no.9, being the Block Development Officer, Berhampore Development Block, who is also the Executive Officer of Berhampore Panchayat Samity, shall take a decision in respect of engaging the writ petitioner for the post-in-question, subject to the petitioner fulfilling all eligibility criteria, as per notification dated 29th March, 2010. 13. The entire exercise, in terms of this order, shall be completed by the concerned Block Development Officer, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks, but not later than six weeks from date of communication of a Photostat certified copy of this order. 14. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.