ESMATARA BEGUM vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS

Form J-2


IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE

Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Sudip Deb

WPA 3621 of 2009

ESMATARA BEGUM
VS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.


For the Petitioner : Mr. L. R. Mondal
Mr. Sk. Kiran

For the State : Mr. Indradeep Pal
Mr. Sudipta Ghosh
Ms. Sudipta Maity

Heard on : 13.11.2026
Judgment on : 13.11.2026

Sudip Deb, J.:

1. The petitioner and respondent no. 1 are represented by their advocates.
Despite service the other respondents have not appeared.

2. This instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker under Raghunathganj-II
Block, Murshidabad, in respect of a Project called Integrated Child
Development Project (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Project’) under the
Integrated Child Development Scheme.
3. The petitioner had made an application for appointment pursuant to a
th
Notification dated 24 September, 1998, issued by the respondent no.7.

2
4. Since, nothing was happening a representation had been made by the
th
petitioner dated 14 June, 2000, addressed to the respondent no.2 for
consideration of her appointment.
5. Since, the respondents were not considering the representation of the
petitioner, a writ petition being WP 14860(W) of 2000 was filed by the
petitioner for consideration of the said representation. Thereafter, the said
writ petition was finally disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
th
on 16 October, 2007, directing the respondent authorities to consider the
said representation.
6. It appears from the record that after the said order was passed, the
respondent no. 7 had finally considered the said representation and passed
th
an order on 8 July, 2008, holding that since the validity of the period of
the panel for which the petitioner had made an application seeking
appointment, had expired, the petitioner does not have any merit at this
stage. The said order was passed by the respondent no. 7 and the order
was also communicated to the learned advocate for the petitioner.
7. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks appointment. The
petitioner also prayed for an order restraining the respondents from giving
th
any effect to the said letter dated 8 July, 2008, whereby the aforesaid
order was communicated to the learned advocate for the petitioner. When
the writ petition was moved, a direction was given to file affidavits. It also
appears from the record that the respondent no. 7 had filed its affidavit-in-
opposition and the petitioner had also filed her affidavit-in-reply to the said
affidavit-in-opposition.

3
8. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the
respondent no. 7 is very cryptic and does not give any specific reason for
rejecting the petitioner’s application seeking appointment.
9. He further submits, on instructions, that the very project for which the
petitioner had applied for appointment is still ongoing. He submits that
since the Project is still ongoing, the petitioner’s representation should be
considered afresh by the respondent authorities and in case there is any
vacancy the petitioner’s appointment should be considered. He also prays
th
not to give any effect to the said order dated 8 July, 2008.
10. Learned advocate appearing for the State respondent submits that the
appointment of the petitioner may be considered if the Project is still
ongoing and in case there is any vacancy suitable for the post of the
petitioner for which she had applied.
11. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the record.
12. This Court is of the view that the order by which the petitioner’s
representation seeking appointment had been rejected is very cryptic and
does not give any reason save and except pointing out that validity period
of the said panel had expired.
th
13. From the notification dated 24 September, 1998, issued by the
respondent no. 7, it does not appear anywhere that there is any time limit
mentioned for consideration of any panel. Therefore, on the face of it, it
appears that the rejection of the petitioner’s application is perverse and
demonstrates total non-application of mind by the respondent no. 7.
14. In the absence of any specific clause mentioned in the notification dated
th
24 September, 1998, the reasoning given by the respondent no. 7 to the

4
effect that the petitioner did not have any merit because the validity period
of the said panel had expired is not acceptable to the Court. Moreover, the
respondent no. 7 had not considered the credentials of the petitioner. It is
settled law that when an authority passes an order the same has to be a
speaking order. Unfortunately, in the said three-line order, none of the
aforesaid components are present. It is apparent from the said order that
there was total non-application of mind on the part of the respondent no. 7
while arriving at such finding. This also amounts to a violation of principles
of natural justice and fair play. As such, this Court is of the view that the
th
order dated 8 July, 2008, cannot be sustained in law and accordingly, the
same is set aside.
15. If the petitioner is found to be eligible strictly in accordance with law, then
the appointment should be given to the petitioner for the post for which she
had applied. In the event, it is found that the petitioner is ineligible then
there should a detailed reasoned order communicating the same to the
petitioner.
16. Considering the agony of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the
th
representation of the petitioner dated 14 June, 2000, should be
considered afresh by the respondent no. 7. The respondent no. 7 and/or
the appropriate authority are directed to consider the said representation
th
dated 14 June, 2000, relating to the petitioner’s appointment in the said
Project strictly in accordance with law, if the Project is still ongoing and if
there is any vacancy. In the event, if there is any vacancy to the post for
which the petitioner had applied and the Project is still ongoing, the
respondent no. 7 and/or the appropriate authority shall pass a reasoned

5
order in the light of the observations made in this order. Such order shall
be passed within four weeks from the date of communication of this order
and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of
two weeks from the date of passing such order. However, it is made clear
that this order will not create any right or equity in favour of the petitioner
in the event it is found that the petitioner is ineligible in the selection
process.
17. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition being WPA 3621
of 2009 stands disposed of.
18. There shall be no order as to costs.
19. Urgent certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties
upon compliance of requisite formalities.

(Sudip Deb, J.)


bm