ARINDAM SINHA,J. - (1.) Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant. We find the appeal was reported to be defective on two counts. Firstly, two writ files were mentioned in preamble of the memo and secondly date of impugned order was wrongly mentioned therein. The defects have since been removed.
(2.) Appellant is before Court urging this intra Court appeal against order dated 12th December, 2019 passed in W.P. 15648 (W) of 2013, being one of two writ petitions dealt with by said order. Mr. Das, learned advocate appears on behalf of State. He waives service of notice of appeal. By consent of parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing on papers disclosed in CAN 1387 of 2020, being application for stay of operation of impugned order.
(3.) A little background is necessary. We commence narration of facts from order dated 7th September, 2009 made by District Magistrate, Howrah, whereby the office disposed of the case [Munmun Paral (Kanrar) vs. State of West Bengal], of private respondent in the writ petition, by observing that selection of appellant for undergoing training as Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife (ANM) is valid. Appellant then undertook training and was discharged, whereafter by communication dated 14th May, 2013, her appointment was terminated by Chief Medical Officer of Health and Secretary, District Health and Family Welfare Samiti, Howrah. Hence, the writ petition and impugned order. In this context, further enquiry on facts show appellant filed the writ petition challenging, in effect, inter alia, order dated 28th June, 2012 made by District Magistrate, Howrah in another case pursuant to said private respondent's writ petition WP 20261(W) of 2009. [Munmun Paral (Kanrar) vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.]. Following from said order dated 28th June, 2012 is extracted on pointing out that reference therein to petitioner identifies Munmun Kanrar and respondent no.10 identifies appellant. "Perusing all the documents submitted by the Petitioner during hearing along with Writ Petition, affidavit in opposition made by the Block Development Officer, Amta - I being the Respondent No.7 and the order made by Hon'ble Justice Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti, Calcutta High Court on 10/05/12, I have observed that the residence of the Respondent No.10 as noted in her application dated 22.08.2008 was situated within the service area of Bajepratap Sub-Centre. As per the order of the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal, the Sub-Centre in question was notified as Bajepratap Sub-Centre being the Headquarter SubCentre under Ballychak Gram Panchayat. The said Sub-Centre can in no way be described as Ballychak Gram Panchayat Sub-Centre. In fact there are two other Sub-Centres viz. Bhojan Sub-Centre and Ballychak Sub-Centre within the territorial jurisdiction of Ballychak Gram Panchat. I am of the opinion that the residential address of the Respondent No.10 as mentioned in her application form dated 22.08.2008 is not within the service area of the sub-centre she has opted to work for vide the same application dated 22.08.2008. Now, if a candidate is not eligible to be considered for the Sub-Centre she has applied for, then the authorities cannot correct her application and say that she is entitled to be considered for some other subcentre within whose area she resides, even though she has not applied for that sub-centre herself. The applicant is fully aware of and responsible for all the entries made in the application form submitted by her. The authorities cannot correct the entries in the application form and place the candidate in the panel for a sub-centre which would have been appreciate for her according to her stated place of residence, although she herself never applied for that subcentre. I, being directed by the order of the Hon'ble Justice Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti dated 10/05/12 of Calcutta High Court, thus dispose of the case with the order that the application made by the Respondent No.10 dated 22.08.2008 for the post of 2nd ANM at Bajepratap Sub-Centre is invalid and the selection of the Respondent No.10 made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Uluberia being the competent authority and Respondent No.6, will be treated as void.............." (emphasis supplied) ;