SUNANDA SAHA Vs. STATE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is essentially aggrieved by an order dated 2nd June, 2010 passed by the Block Development Officer, Mahammadbazar Development Block, District Birbhum. This order appears to have been passed pursuant to an earlier order passed by this Court on 28th October, 2009 in W.P. 19552(W) of 2007. By the order dated 28th October, 2009, this Court, while disposing of the earlier writ petition, had inter alia, directed the concerned Block Development Officer to conduct an enquiry for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the private respondent, namely Smt. Aparna Saha, was a permanent resident of the area where the post of 'Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife' had been offered for selection. This Court had directed the concerned authority to give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner as well as the private respondent to vindicate their respective stand regarding their permanent residence and had directed the concerned authority to communicate the decision to both of them.

(2.) Perusing the impugned order it appears that the matter was dealt with elaborately and evidence in support of their respective contentions were placed by the writ petitioner as well as the private respondent before the concerned Block Development Officer. The Block Development Officer after a detailed discussion ultimately held in favour of the private respondent in so far as the residential norms are concerned. It has been observed by the Block Development Officer in his order that the private respondent was eligible for selection and for undergoing training for the post of second 'Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife'.

(3.) Although the writ Court ordinarily ought not to interfere with the findings arrived at by a public authority on appreciation of evidence and material facts, in the facts of the instant case serious challenge has been thrown by the writ petitioner in respect of the impugned order particularly with regard to the documents supporting the residential status of the private respondent. It is categorically submitted by the learned advocate of the writ petitioner that although advertisement for the concerned post was published in the year 2006, all documents indicating residential status in favour of the private respondent which were produced before the concerned Block Development Officer relates to a period after the date of advertisement. It is on this ground that the writ petitioner has questioned the impugned order of the Block Development Officer.