Background Facts

The applicants applied for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Helper under Joynagar-II ICDS project within Maydah gram panchayat. They were called for an interview. Upon completion of the interview, the Child Development Project Officer published a panel of 13 successful candidates for the post of Anganwadi Helpers. Later the authority did not take any step to engage the applicants, therefore the writ petition was filed. It was argued that there was inaction on the part of the authorities in granting appointment to the empanelled candidates. A prayer was made for a declaration that the life of the panel had not expired and the applicants should not be treated as disqualified candidates. However, the writ court dismissed the petition.

Aggrieved by the dismissal, the applicants filed the appeal before the Calcutta High Court.

It was argued by the applicants that once they were empanelled, they had a right to be engaged as Anganwadi Helpers. It was further argued that the authority could not have disqualified them, as they were successful at the interview. It was further argued that the authority was bound to take the recruitment process to its logical conclusion. Therefore, it was argued that the writ court failed to take into consideration such aspects before dismissing the writ petition.

On the other hand, it was contended by the State that the Chairman of the Project Level Selection and Monitoring Committee had tendered his resignation and no meeting had been held with regard to the said panel. Therefore, the validity of the panel had expired and as such the candidatures of the empanelled candidates could not be considered.

It was submitted that the copy of the panel which was annexed to the writ petition was a forged document. It was further submitted by the State that the panel also did not contain the signature of the members of the selection committee. It was submitted that without any approval of either the selection committee or the Director of Women and Child Development and Social Welfare or the District Magistrate In-charge of the subject ICDS Project, the panel so prepared had no legal validity.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was noted by the Division Bench that the panel dated September 1, 2014 had expired in the year 2016. It was further observed that the panel which was prepared on September 1, 2014 was valid for 2 years i.e. upto August 31, 2016. The meeting of the selection committee indicated that two posts were advertised, one was reserved for OBC and one for ST.

It was found that from the report that 27 Anganwadi Helpers were already engaged out of 30, thus only 3 posts were vacant and those 3 posts were reserved. It was further observed that the applicants were listed under the general category and not the reserved category. They did not have any chance for engagement. The applicants did not raise any objection that they had wrongly been empanelled under the general category, instead of scheduled Caste category.

It was held that the applicants could not fulfil the eligibility criteria against the three vacancies. It was further held that the applicants did not have any vested right to be engaged as Anganwadi Helpers as the empanelment itself did not create any right of appointment.

The case of Shankarsan Dash vs Union of India was relied upon wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed. The notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection, they do not acquire any right to the post. The State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies.

Further, the case of State of Haryana vs Subash Chander Maruaha was relied upon wherein it was held that there is no legal duty on the State Government to appoint all the persons who are in the list and the applicants have no legal right under the rules to enforce its performance.

With the aforesaid observations, the decision of the writ court was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the appeal filed by the applicants was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Sarbani Sardar (Naskar) & Ors. vs The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case No. : M.A.T. 163 of 2026, IA No : CAN 1 of 2026 In W.P.A. 16366 of 2017

Counsel for the Appellants : Saibalendu Bhowmik, Raj Sekhar Basu, Subrata Bhattacharya

Counsel for the Respondent : Susmita Saha Dutta, AGP, Tanushree Ghosh, Madhurima Basu