Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

Mere Empanelment Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Calcutta High Court Upholds Employer's Discretion in ANM Selection

13 October 2024 10:02 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Minati Majumder (Sharma) challenging the appointment of Rita Sarkar (Seal) as an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM). The court held that Sarkar's selection was based on a final merit list, where she had ranked higher than the petitioner, and thus her appointment was in accordance with law.

The petitioner, Minati Majumder (Sharma), had applied for the position of ANM in the Balia Health Sub-Centre, under the Silinda Gram Panchayat. Following the scrutiny of applications, a provisional merit list was prepared, where Minati was placed first. However, due to concerns about potential bias in the final selection, Minati filed her first writ petition (W.P. No. 30463(w) of 2008) seeking judicial intervention to ensure her appointment.

In an order dated January 16, 2009, the court had ruled that empanelment did not confer an automatic right to appointment. The authorities were instructed to ensure fairness but were not bound to appoint the petitioner. The court stated:

“Mere empanelment does not confer the candidate concerned any indefeasible right of appointment. It is the absolute discretion of the employer to decide as to whether an appointment shall be given from the panel or not.”

Despite this, Rita Sarkar (Seal), a fellow applicant, claimed she had secured higher marks than the petitioner. Upon rescrutiny, a final merit list was published, placing Sarkar first and Majumder second. Sarkar was subsequently selected for training and later appointed to the position.

The petitioner, Minati Majumder, filed the present writ petition in June 2009 challenging the appointment of Rita Sarkar. She alleged that the final panel was prepared improperly and that the authorities acted with bias by favoring Sarkar over her.

The central question before the court was whether the appointment of Sarkar, based on the final merit list, violated the petitioner’s rights or was tainted by procedural irregularities.

Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul), presiding over the matter, examined the records submitted by the State. The court found that the final merit list, published on November 22, 2008, was duly prepared and signed by multiple authorities, including the Block Medical Officer of Health (BMOH), the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), and other health officials. The court observed that the final panel was formed after rescrutinizing the marks, which led to Rita Sarkar securing the top position with 47.13% marks, while the petitioner, Minati, scored 42.67%, placing her second.

The court reiterated that mere empanelment did not guarantee appointment and that the petitioner’s case had already been considered by the authorities in compliance with the earlier court order. The court held:

"The petitioner’s claim for appointment cannot be sustained as the final merit list clearly places her second, and the respondent, Rita Sarkar (Seal), in the first position."

The court further noted that Rita Sarkar had already completed her training and had been appointed as the 2nd ANM in Chakdaha. Since the final merit list was duly prepared and there were no procedural lapses in her selection, the court found no grounds to interfere with the appointment.

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that Rita Sarkar’s appointment was lawful and in accordance with the final merit list. The court rejected the petitioner’s allegations of bias and irregularity, ruling that the selection process was transparent and properly conducted.

This judgment emphasizes that inclusion in a provisional merit list does not guarantee appointment, and final decisions are based on comprehensive scrutiny by the authorities.

Date of Decision: September 30, 2024

Minati Majumder (Sharma) v. State of West Bengal & Ors.​.

Latest Legal News