Biswanath Somadder, J. - (1.) HAVING heard the learned Advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant writ application it appears that the writ petitioner has essentially challenged an order dated March 12, 2010 passed by the Block Development Officer, Burwan, Murshidabad which appears to have been passed in favour of the private respondent no.9.
(2.) IT appears that the moot question, as sought to be raised by the writ petitioner, is with regard to her entitlement to get preference as a Self Help Group candidate, which according to the writ petitioner, has not been dealt with categorically. It has been, however, stated in the impugned order passed by the Block Development Officer that since several numbers of applicants from Self Help Groups had put in their applications, the Selection Committee found it difficult to prioritize candidates on the basis of their belonging to Self Help Groups. In such circumstances, the Selection Committee had dropped the idea and decided to go ahead on "marks basis" selection process. It has also been stated in the impugned order that the petitioner had obtained highest marks in the interview. The Panchayat body had decided, however, to go ahead with "marks basis" selection and no partiality towards the writ petitioner was shown. In such circumstances, the complaint of the petitioner was rejected and the selection of the private respondent was held to be justified. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case as stated above, although there is no doubt that preference was to be given to an applicant who belong to a Self Help Group, since it was found by the Selection Committee that it was difficult to prioritize candidates on the basis of their belonging to Self Help Groups, going ahead with "marks basis" selection process cannot be held to be so palpably wrong in the facts and circumstances of the case. No situation can be created which would bring about an impasse in the selection process and it has been clearly stated by the Block Development Officer that the Body cannot run different selection methods in different parts of its jurisdiction.
(3.) IN such circumstances, there is no cause for interference and the writ petition stands dismissed accordingly.;