16.04.2025 Item No.03 Court No.11 Avijit Mitra MAT 351 of 2024 with IA No.CAN 1 of 2021 with IA No.CAN 1 of 2023 Pramila Hembram (Murmu) - Versus - State of West Bengal & ors. Mr. Soumik Ghosh, Mr. Pradip Saren, Ms. Saheli Hembrom …for the appellant Mr. Sirsanyo Badyopadhyay, Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. Tarak Karan …for the State respondents The present appeal has been preferred challenging an order dated 9th January, 2024 passed by the learned single Judge in a writ petition being WPA 8909 of 2023 which was preferred by the writ petitioner/appellant herein challenging inter alia the selection process and the engagement of the respondent no.8 to the post of Accredited Social Health Activist (hereinafter referred to as ASHA). Shorn of unnecessary details the facts are the appellant is a member of Schedule Tribe (hereinafter referred to as ST) category. A notice was published for engagement of ASHA vide memo dated 21st April, 2022. Clause 5 of the said notice runs as follows: ‘5) Area (Village) where the majority of the population belongs to SC/ST, preference will be given to the candidates from that category, keeping the selection criteria fixed by the Sub Divisional Level ASHA Selection Committee. (Memo No.HFW- 27011/375/2018-NHM SEC-Dept. of H&FW-Par-II- 3692) Date:03-12-2021.’ The appellant as well as the respondent no.8 participated in the selection process, as residents of the village Palashpahari, however, the respondent no.8 was engaged at Beria Sub-Centre. Drawing our attention to clause 5 of the notice dated 21st April, 2022, Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the majority of the population of the concerned area (village), in which the respondent no.8 was engaged, belongs to ST. In view thereof, it was incumbent upon the State respondents to give preference to candidates from the ST category. Had such preference been given, the appellant would have emerged to be successful. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon a census report annexed at page 17 of the supplementary affidavit wherein it has inter alia been stated: ‘In Palash Pahari village, most of the villagers are from Schedule Caste (SC) & Schedule Tribe (ST). Schedule Tribe (ST) constitutes 60.33% while Schedule Caste (SC) were 29.75% of total population in Palash Pahari village’. Drawing the attention of this Court to a memo dated 18th April, 2022 issued by the respondent no. 4, Mr. Ghosh argues that in respect of Beria Sub-Centre at village Palashpahari there was only one vacancy. He further argues that a perusal of the contents of the order impugned would reveal that the learned single 2 Judge erroneously proceeded on the basis that ‘less than 10 % of the entire population in the concerned village belongs to SC/ST community’. Such finding is contrary to the census report. The State respondents have not followed the contents of clause 5 of the notice dated 21st April, 2022 and the appellant has been illegally elbowed out from the zone of consideration. Mr. Karan, learned advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that in the notice for engagement of ASHA dated 21st April, 2022 it has been categorically indicated that the engagement of ASHA would be on purely voluntary basis under NHM ‘for different areas under all the Health Sub-Centres (Annexure –C) under Raghunathpur-I, Raghunathpur-II, Neturia, Santuri, Para & Kashipur BPHC at Raghunathpur-I, Raghunathpur-II, Neturia, Santuri, Para & Kashipur Development Block respectively under Raghunathpur Sub Division’. According to him, the Beria Sub-Centre is comprised of five villages, namely, Beria, Gowalberia, Palashpahari, Matidundra-Dalanbor and Kulai and the said health sub-centre was set up in one of the said villages, namely, Palashpahari. The said sub-centre admittedly caters to the need of five villages within Beria Sub-Centre. Such fact would be explicit from the memo date 7th February, 2025 issued by the respondent no.6, annexed at page 13 of the affidavit-in-opposition to the supplementary affidavit filed by the appellant and from 3 the reply of the respondent no.6 to the memo of the respondent no.5 dated 19th April, 2023, annexed at page 27 of the affidavit-in-opposition. The percentage of ST population at village Beria and at village Palashpahari was 9% and 36.9% respectively. Drawing the attention of this Court to the census report annexed at page 20 of the affidavit-in-opposition to the supplementary affidavit, he contends that the total population of the above-mentioned five villages taken together was 3560 and the population of ST was 1578 and that as such the percentage of ST was less than 50%. In reply, Mr. Ghosh argues that in the notice dated 21st April, 2022 there was no specific rider to the effect that Beria Sub-Centre comprises of five villages and that in respect of the said villages only one Sub-Centre was existing at Palashpahari. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. In the notice for engagement dated 21st April, 2022 it has been categorically stated that the engagement of ASHA would be for different areas under all the Health Sub-Centres. In Beria Sub-Centre there are admittedly five villages. The Sub-Centre was created to cater to the need of five villages in the Beria Sub-Centre. The total population of Beria Sub-Centre comprising of five villages is 3560 out of which 1578 belong to ST category. The 4 contention of the appellant that the average population of five villages in Beria Sub-Centre cannot be the parameter to measure the majority population in a particular village, namely, Palashpahari, is not acceptable to this Court. In the village Palashpahari the percentage of ST population was 36.9% and the veracity of the documents annexed in support thereof, cannot be dislodged by the electoral roll and the census report upon which reliance has been placed by the appellant. The appellant as well as the respondent no.8 participated in the selection process and the appellant secured an aggregate score of 37.84 marks whereas the respondent no.8 secured an aggregate score of 52.99 marks. Having thus emerged to be successful in the selection process, the respondent no.8 was engaged. In the said conspectus, we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned and that as such no interference is called in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.) 5