BISWANATH SOMADDER,J. - (1.) The specific allegation made in the instant writ petition was that although the petitioner was a more deserving candidate for being considered for selection to the post of Accredited Social Health Activist (ASHA), the respondent no.5, who had inferior qualification, was selected over and above the writ petitioner. This Court had initially directed the concerned Block Development Officer to file a report in the form of an affidavit stating therein the basis on which the private respondent no.5 was selected for the post-in-question over and above the writ petitioner who had specifically stated in the writ petition that she had obtained higher marks in the Madhyamik Pariksha. The report in the form of an affidavit has now been filed on behalf the Block Development Officer, Domjur, Howrah, which may be kept on record.
(2.) Perusing the report it appears that although the private respondent no.5 obtained lower marks in respect of her academic qualification, in her aggregate computed on the basis of her academic score as well as interview, she scored 51.35, which was higher than the aggregate score by the writ petitioner who had scored 49.15.
(3.) However, what transpires from the report is that while the private respondent no.5 obtained 17.75 in the interview, the writ petitioner obtained only 6.75. Even individual marks awarded to the private respondent no.5 and the writ petitioner by respective members of the Selection Committee who were present in the interview board, reflect a glaring difference when compared together.;