The Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed that administrative authorities must provide clear reasons when recommending some eligible candidates for appointment over others from an approved list. Reiterating precedent, the judgment holds that, in the absence of reasons for selective recommendation, courts may intervene to ensure fairness and transparency. This decision is binding on all subordinate courts in West Bengal and reinforces established principles on administrative fairness in public employment selection processes within the ICDS scheme and similar government quotas.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/9188/2024 of SMT. KHUKUMANI MAHATO AND ORS. Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. CNR WBCHCA0169502024 |
| Date of Registration | 28-03-2024 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge (Aniruddha Roy, J.) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in West Bengal; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Administrative Law / Public Employment |
| Questions of Law | Whether an appointing authority can selectively recommend candidates for government posts from an eligible list without assigning reasons, and if such administrative decisions are subject to judicial review. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that where an administrative authority selects some eligible candidates for appointment from an approved list, without assigning any reasons for not considering other equally eligible candidates from the same list, such selective recommendation is arbitrary and unsustainable. Public authorities must maintain transparency, fairness, and equality in the selection process for public employment. Judicial review is permissible in such cases to prevent arbitrariness, and courts can direct the appointment of eligible candidates who were unfairly overlooked, particularly where no ineligibility is alleged. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | The judgment refers to and follows a previous coordinate Bench decision in WPA 3566 of 2022; citation by reference to “Annexure-P6 at page 56 to WPA 9188 of 2024.” |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court cites the State’s own submission acknowledging the Director ICDS’s authority, but notes the absence of reasons for selective recommendation as a departure from lawful administrative practice. It adopts the coordinate Bench’s finding that a “pick and choose policy” without explanation violates principles of administrative fairness. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Five petitioners, having applied for posts of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers under the ICDS Home Quota in Purulia, West Bengal, were included in the first eligibility list. Despite being found eligible, they were not appointed, while others from a later list were appointed without explanation for the selective process. The Court noted unfilled vacancies and found no allegation of ineligibility against the petitioners. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; authorities dealing with government appointments nationwide |
| Follows | Previous coordinate Bench judgment in WPA 3566 of 2022 (Calcutta High Court) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court reaffirms that government authorities must clearly state reasons when recommending only certain eligible candidates from an approved list for appointments.
- Judicial review is warranted where administrative authorities adopt a pick-and-choose approach without explanation, especially in public employment matters.
- Lawyers can cite this judgment to challenge arbitrary or non-speaking administrative orders in government recruitment.
- Vacant positions and lack of challenge to a successful earlier writ can be relevant for obtaining similar relief in subsequent, similarly situated cases.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The judgment adopts and applies the reasoning of a previous coordinate Bench, which found fault with the lack of explanation for recommending only certain candidates from multiple eligible lists.
- The Court notes the State’s failure to provide any reason for not considering eligible candidates from the first list while filling positions with candidates from a second list.
- The Director ICDS’s authority to recommend appointments is acknowledged, but such discretion must be exercised transparently and non-arbitrarily.
- The Court cites the “pick and choose policy” as unjustified without specific, recorded reasons and holds that such actions are reviewable and correctable by the judiciary.
- The State’s submission regarding current vacancies is accepted, enabling the Court to direct immediate appointment of the overlooked petitioners.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioners were included in the first list of eligible candidates and recommended for appointment.
- Others from a later list had already received appointments, although the petitioners were equally eligible.
- Sought direction to be appointed to the vacant posts of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers.
Respondent / State
- Cited existing rules and guidelines governing appointments (via Government Memorandum dated 09-11-2012).
- Submitted details of current vacancies to the Court.
- Expressed willingness to comply with court directions regarding filling the vacancies.
Factual Background
The petitioners had applied for positions as Anganwadi Workers and Helpers under the ICDS scheme in Purulia, West Bengal. Their names appeared in the first list of eligible candidates, forwarded on 25-02-2020 and confirmed as eligible on 08-02-2021. However, appointments were made only from a subsequent list, without any stated reason for not appointing those from the first list. Petitioners challenged this selective appointment process, seeking direction for their engagement, especially in light of continuing vacancies.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment refers to a Government Memorandum dated 09-11-2012 outlining the rules and guidelines for Anganwadi appointments. It also considers communications regarding the vacancy position as on 15-09-2025. The Court does not interpret or “read down” any statutory provision but applies administrative law principles regarding fairness and transparency in executive actions affecting public employment.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are present in this single-judge decision.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court accepted on record both the Government Memorandum and up-to-date vacancy details during the hearing, facilitating an expeditious and equitable resolution.
- Directions were given to make appointments within a specified time frame (three weeks from communication of the order).
- The order allows parties to act on a server copy of the judgment downloaded from the official website.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment closely follows and reiterates a previous coordinate Bench decision (WPA 3566 of 2022), reaffirming established principles of administrative fairness in appointments.