Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity Law of Limitation Binds All Equally, Including the State: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Review Petition with 5743 Days’ Delay Once Selected, All Are Equals: Allahabad High Court Slams State for Withholding Pay Protection From Later Batches of Ex-Servicemen Constables Non-Compliance With Section 42 of NDPS Act Is Fatal to Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Two Accused In 160 Kg Poppy Husk Case Unregistered Agreement Creating Right of Way Inadmissible in Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Summary Decree in Partition Suit Denied: Unequivocal Admissions Absent, Full Trial Necessary: Delhi High Court No Court Can Allow Itself to Be Used as an Instrument of Fraud: Delhi High Court Exposes Forged Writ Petition Filed in Name of Unaware Citizen "Deliberate Wage Splitting to Evade Provident Fund Dues Is Illegal": Bombay High Court Restores PF Authority's 7A Order Against Saket College and Centrum Direct Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife

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