TAPAN KUMAR DUTT, J. - (1.) RE : F.M.A. 415 of 2012 This appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Smt. Arpita Saha, against an order dated 11.08.2010 passed by an Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P. 15861(W) of 2009 whereby the Hon'ble Single Judge has been pleased to observe that "no order is passed on this writ petition and in view of the entitlement of the petitioner to file an appeal or to intervene in the pending appeal, this writ petition is dismissed. It will however, be open to the parties to agitate all issues in the appeal, if so advised."
(2.) THE learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted before this Court that the writ petitioner who happens to be the appellant in the present appeal had filed the writ petition challenging a certain order dated 20.07.2009 passed by the District Magistrate whereby the District Magistrate concerned had considered a number of petitions by different persons. It appears from the paper book that the order is dated 7th July, 2009 but the Memo. is dated 20th July, 2009. It further appears that the dispute in the appeal is with regard to the appointment in the post of Auxiliary Nurse -cum -Midwife at SubCentre Patikabari GP Head Quarter.
(3.) THE learned Advocate for the appellant at the outset made it clear that the said Sub -Centre is quite distinct from another Sub -Centre, that is, Patikabari PHC Sub -Centre, and the appellant is concerned with Patikabari GP Head Quarter only and not with Patikabari PHC Sub -Centre. The said learned Advocate submitted that the writ petition being W.P. 15861(W) of 2009 is only concerned with the Patikabari GP Head Quarter Sub -Centre in which the appellant was initially selected and has also undergone training in this regard and he further submitted that when the appellant had substantially covered with the major part of the training, the selection of the appellant was cancelled and in her place the respondent no. 8 in the writ petition, that is, Smt. Pampa Saha, was selected. The said learned Advocate, on merits of the case, submitted that the Hon'ble Single Bench should have allowed the writ petition by holding that the authority concerned acted illegally by allowing the said Pampa Saha to submit some essential documents as per advertisement concerned at a subsequent stage and not at the time of filing of her application for appointment to the said post.;