Vague Allegations Of Infidelity And Harassment Without Cogent Evidence Do Not Amount To Cruelty For Divorce: Telangana High Court Supreme Court Introduces 'Periodic Review' Mechanism For Monitoring Contumacious Advocates Supreme Court Suspends Criminal Contempt Conviction Of Yatin Oza; Invokes Article 142 To Grant 'Final Act Of Forgiveness' With Periodic Conduct Review Court Must Adopt Parental Temperament While Disciplining Bar Members; SC Suspends Yatin Oza’s Contempt Conviction As ‘Final Act Of Forgiveness’ Conviction Can Be Based On Testimony Of Solitary Witness Of Sterling Quality; Indian Law Values Quality Over Quantity Of Evidence: Supreme Court Authorities Can't Turn A Blind Eye To Illegal Constructions; Must Follow Due Process For Demolition: Telangana High Court Section 506 IPC Charges Liable To Be Quashed If Threat Lacks 'Intent To Cause Alarm' To Complainant: Supreme Court SC/ST Act Offences Not Made Out If Alleged Abuse Occurs Inside Private Residence Without Public Presence: Supreme Court Election Tribunal Becomes Functus Officio After Passing Final Order; Cannot Later Declare New Result Based On Recount: Supreme Court Remarriage Contracted Immediately After Divorce Decree Before Expiry Of Limitation Period Has No Validity In Law: Telangana High Court Lack Of Notice For Spot Inspection Under Stamp Act Is An Irregularity, Not Illegality If No Prejudice Caused: Allahabad High Court Mutation Entry In Revenue Records Does Not Create Or Extinguish Title; Succession To Agricultural Land Governed Strictly By Statute: Delhi High Court Children Shouldn't Be Deprived Of Parental Affection Due To Matrimonial Disputes; Courts Must Ensure Child Isn't Tutored: Andhra Pradesh High Court 138 NI Act | Wife Of Sole Proprietor Not Vicariously Liable For Dishonoured Cheque She Didn't Sign: Calcutta High Court Quashes Proceedings State Cannot Profit From Its Own Delay In Deciding Land Tenure Conversion Applications: Gujarat High Court Owner Of Establishment Cannot Evade Liability Under Employees’ Compensation Act By Shifting Responsibility To Manager: Bombay High Court Developer Assigning Only Leasehold Rights Via Sub-Lease Not A 'Promoter', Project Doesn't Require RERA Registration: Allahabad High Court Court Cannot Be Oblivious To Juveniles Used By Organized Syndicates To Commit Heinous Crimes: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To CCL Conviction For Assaulting Public Servant Sustainable Based On Victim's Testimony & Medical Evidence Even If Eye-Witnesses Turn Hostile: Bombay 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.​.

Latest Legal News