- (1.) This writ petition is directed against an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranaghat, i.e., the respondent no. 6, on August 22, 2014. This order was passed pursuant to an order passed by this court in an earlier round of litigation whereby a learned single Judge of this court directed the respondent no. 6 therein to dispose of the representation by passing a reasoned order within a certain timeframe as directed. The representation which was supposed to be considered by the respondent no. 6 has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P-7. The only grievance made by the petitioner in the said writ petition was that she had been working as an ASHA Karmee for quite some time. She had applied pursuant to the notification issued by the respondents but she had suddenly come to know that there has been an effort on the part of the respondents to engage a wealthy lady improperly. She prayed to the respondent no. 6 to be appointed for the post.
(2.) Therefore, the sole consideration before the respondent no. 6 was the representation of the petitioner, as per order of the learned single Judge in the earlier round of litigation. However, before the respondent no. 6 the petitioner produced an unsigned score-sheet where the name of the petitioner was found first. The petitioner had also brought allegation against the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat for not selecting her for the post of ASHA Karmee. The petitioner, as it appears from the order impugned, went that far to submit that the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat was bribed and, therefore, selected the less qualified candidate and, therefore, the selection was liable to be set aside. Before the respondent no. 6 different authorities appeared. The respondent no. 6 held the score-sheet to be manufactured and bad. The former Pradhan had identified her signature in the official list and stated that the private respondent no. 11 had topped the list and the petitioner was not selected as she appeared at the Madhyamik Examination but became unsuccessful. Similarly, reports from the concerned Block Development Officer also revealed that the respondent no. 11 stood first by securing the highest marks. The explanation given by the petitioner was that she clandestinely was able to manage the score-sheet from the Gram Panchayat office with the help of some undisclosed sources and admitted that it did not contain any signature of anybody on the selection committee. Subsequently, she filed an affidavit on her own which contained letters of two members of the selection committee. On verification of the scoresheet it appeared to the respondent no. 6 as clear that the signatures of those two persons were put with fresh ink on the xerox score-sheet on a later date. Otherwise, the SDO concluded, the score-sheet would have been placed as an annexure to the writ petition. During the cross-examination and interrogation those two members of the selection committee fumbled and made contradictory statements which did not inspire sufficient confidence of the respondent no. 6. He came to a definite conclusion that these two persons had put their signatures on the xerox copy whereas both of them identified their signatures in the panel list to be true and original. From this the respondent no. 6 concluded that the score-sheet was fictitious, a manufactured document and it has been purposefully placed as part of the writ petition to place the petitioner at the first position. The respondent no. 6 relied on the document submitted by the Block Development Officer where all the members of the selection committee had put their signatures in their stipulated places.
(3.) So far as the marksheet is concerned, the respondent no. 6 found that the petitioner got a compartmental in science group and was treated unsuccessful candidate in the Madhyamik examination in the year 1989 whereas the selected candidate found at the top of the official list obtained much higher marks than that of the petitioner and he passed the Madhyamik examination in the 2nd division. I have heard Mr. Gupta, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, at length and have given my anxious consideration to the facts of the case. I do not find any impropriety or lacunae in the order impugned in the writ petition. Whether a document is fictitious or valid cannot be determined by a writ court. That calls for evidence. The respondent no. 6 has taken evidence of all the concerned persons and came to a conclusion that the score-sheet produced by the petitioner was a manufactured one. The reasons he mentioned for the conclusion were clear, unambiguous and logical. He has placed the reasonings in their logical sequence from which the conclusion he reached can perhaps be said to be the only one under the circumstances. Whether there was any error in appreciation of evidence relates to the purview of a disputed question of fact. Such an exercise cannot be undertaken by a writ court.;