MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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