Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 968 (CAL)

Hena Moyra v. State of West Bengal

2022-07-06

I.P.MUKERJI, SUBHENDU SAMANTA

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. A division bench of this court considering this appeal at an earlier point of time on 4th December, 2014 made the following observation : “The issue pertains to the question whether in fact some of the guidelines and norms for viva voce for selection in question – Anganwadi Helpers was not complied with or not, though categorically the respondent State submits that norms were not complied with, what exactly was the violation or deficit found in the viva-voce conducted on the earlier occasion was not spelt out. In the absence of making discretionary violation of such deficit pertaining to earlier viva-voce it is not possible that a candidate who was successful in the earlier process of selection is denied the opportunity of being appointed though there was no violation of any norms and guidelines of the selection process. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the respondent-State has to place on record an affidavit detailing the reason for setting aside the earlier selection on the ground of deficits in the viva-voce and also place on record the relevant resolution and the documents pertaining to the meeting of the concerned authority.” 2. A selection process for recruitment of Anganwadi workers was started in 2010. It is not exactly clear to what extent this exercise proceeded. Admittedly, it had reached the viva-voce stage. 3. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate for the appellant no. 2 submits that a panel was prepared in which his client was included, which is denied by other learned counsel appearing in this matter. It also seems to be the admitted position that since 2010 there has been no recruitment of Anganwadi workers under Mathurapur Block-I I.C.D.S. project and that there are vacancies against which appointments can be made. 4. The earlier division bench specifically remarked “It is not possible that a candidate who was successful in the earlier process of selection is denied the opportunity of being appointed though there was no violation of any norms and guidelines of the selection process”. 5. A person who has participated in a selection process is entitled to know its result. 4. The earlier division bench specifically remarked “It is not possible that a candidate who was successful in the earlier process of selection is denied the opportunity of being appointed though there was no violation of any norms and guidelines of the selection process”. 5. A person who has participated in a selection process is entitled to know its result. If the selection process has proceeded to preparation of a panel, the life of the selection process has not come to an end, there was no irregularity in the conduct of the selection process, there are vacancies which have not been filled up, and the empanelled candidates remain eligible to be appointed, there is no reason why the empanelled candidates should be deprived of the work opportunity. On the other hand, if it is found that the selection process was conducted in an irregular way or it may have been conducted in a regular way, but no panel was prepared, then after so many years, it is a fit case where a new selection process should be undertaken by the authority. 6. In any case, somebody has to take a decision on the issue. We do not think that the impugned order passed by the learned single judge would help in resolving this issue once and for ever. 7. In those circumstances, we direct the Secretary, Department of Women and Child Development and Social Welfare, Government of West Bengal to consider all the facts of this case and the observations made by us and by the previous division bench and come to a reasoned decision with regard to the above selection within a period of eight weeks from date of communication of this order. 8. If the secretary feels that assistance from any candidate is required, it will be open for him to seek such assistance but we make it clear that since a policy decision is involved, we are not affording any party a right of hearing before the Secretary, in this decision making process. 9. The impugned judgment and order dated 3rd April, 2013 is modified accordingly. 10. The appeal (F.M.A. 246 of 2015) is disposed of.