28.09.2026 Ct. No.446 Sl. No.3 akd W. P. A. 24959 of 2024 [Dipak Kumar Pal -Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors.] Mr. Anindya Sundar Das Mr. Shounak Ghosh Ms. Paramita Mondal Mr. Suman Halder … … for the petitioner Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta Mr. Baibhav Roy Ms. Anushka Dasgupta … … for respondent no. 4 Mr. Dinesh Chandra Singh … … for the State 1. Supplementary affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 is taken on record. 2. The dispute that led to the presentation of the present writ petition relates to the recruitment to the post of Block Data Manager (BPHU) on a purely contractual basis under the District Health & Family Welfare Samiti, Nadia. The recruitment process was initiated by the Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal, under the XV Finance Commission (HG), National Health Mission and National Ayush Mission. The petitioner through this writ petition has challenged the appointment of respondent no. 4 to the aforesaid post and has prayed for a direction upon the authorities to appoint him to the said post upon cancellation of the appointment already granted to respondent no. 4. 3. Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, refers to the Recruitment Notice, as appearing at page 33 of the writ petition, and argues that Clause 10 under the heading “General Instructions” specifically provided that “experience will 2 be calculated as on 01.10.23 for all the posts. Appointment letter/offer letter will not be accepted as experience. Experience certificate should clearly mention the name of post held, date of joining & date of leaving, if any, with date of issue.” He submits that, despite such clause having been incorporated in the Recruitment Notice, no marks were allotted towards experience. He claims that the petitioner is a more experienced candidate, having gained experience by working in various recognised institutions. On the other hand, respondent no. 4, who has been favoured with such appointment, has no such experience and is a less meritorious candidate. He further submits that, had any marks been awarded towards experience, the petitioner would have been appointed to the aforesaid post. 4. Mr. Ghosh submits that from the experience certificate of respondent no. 4, as annexed to the supplementary affidavit, it would be evident that respondent no. 4 had been working as a Data Entry Operator from May 2013 to 27th October, 2023 at R. N. Tagore Nursing Home & Polyclinic, Nazirpur, Nadia. He also submits that, from the academic testimonials submitted by respondent no. 4, it would be evident that respondent no. 4 pursued a regular graduation course from 2012 to 2015. He raises the question as to how a candidate, while pursuing a regular graduation course in a recognised university, could, at the same time, work as a Data Entry Operator in an establishment. Therefore, according to Mr. Ghosh, the experience certificate produced by respondent no. 4 is a forged document. Therefore, in his view, the appointment of respondent no. 4 is not valid and the same is liable to be cancelled. 5. Mr. Dasgupta, learned Advocate representing respondent no. 4, vehemently opposes the contentions advanced by Mr. 3 Ghosh. He submits that there are two sets of eligibility criteria for the aforesaid post. One of the criteria is that a person has to establish himself/herself as eligible to apply for the post, and the other, as per the notification, relates to the factors considered for assessing the eligibility of the candidates, namely, the marks obtained by them in Madhyamik, Higher Secondary, Graduation and the Computer Test conducted by the Selection Committee. He further submits that respondent no. 4 secured the highest marks and, accordingly, was placed at the top of the panel. She was given appointment to the post, having emerged as the most suitable candidate for the same. 6. Mr. Dasgupta also submits that respondent no. 4 comes from an economically disadvantaged family and, as such, in order to continue her education, she was compelled to work in a private Nursing Home & Polyclinic as a Data Entry Operator. He further submits that the job of the Data Entry Operator was a part-time job and that, without hampering her studies, she rendered service in the said Nursing Home & Polyclinic and gained experience. 7. He submits that, after understanding the purport of all the clauses as well as the terms and conditions of the Recruitment Notice, the petitioner participated in the selection process. However, after becoming unsuccessful, the petitioner has challenged the selection process. According to him, a candidate, after being unsuccessful in a selection process, cannot turn around and challenge the legality of such process. 8. Mr. Singh, learned Advocate appears for the State/respondents and adopts the submissions made by Mr. Dasgupta. 4 9. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. 10. Record reveals that a selection process was initiated by the Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal, under the XV Finance Commission (HG), National Health Mission & National Ayush Mission, pursuant to the notification dated 12th October, 2023, to fill up the post of Data Manager (BPHU) on a purely contractual basis under the District Health & Family Welfare Samiti, Nadia. Undisputedly, in Clause 10 of the said notification, it was stated that experience would be calculated as on 1st October, 2023 for all posts. However, as noticed previously, ultimately, the eligibility of the participants was assessed on the basis of the marks obtained by them in Madhyamik, Higher Secondary, Graduation and the Computer Test conducted by the Selection Committee. 11. Respondent no. 4 secured more marks than any other candidate who participated in the selection process for the aforesaid post. Accordingly, she was placed at the top of the panel and ultimately given appointment to the post. No candidate was awarded any marks towards experience in the selection process. Thus, the decision not to award any marks towards experience was uniformly applied to all candidates participating in the selection process. There is no case of any discrimination. The petitioner has also not placed any material to show that any candidate participating in the selection process was treated differently. The petitioner participated in the selection process without raising any objection or demur. However, after becoming unsuccessful, the petitioner has challenged the said selection process, which is impermissible in the eye of law. 5 12. Accordingly, this Court finds no justification to interfere in the selection process. 13. In such circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. 14. With these observations and directions, WPA 24959 of 2024 is dismissed. 15. Since no affidavits have been filed by the respondents, the allegations made in the writ petition shall be deemed to have not been admitted by the respondents. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. Let urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be made available to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of usual formalities. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)