Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court

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.​.

Similar News