The Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed that when eligible candidates from the first list for Anganwadi Worker and Helper posts are excluded without any justifiable reason, such exclusion can be corrected by the High Court under judicial review—even if subsequent candidates from a later list have already been appointed, provided there is no allegation against their eligibility. The judgment upholds established precedent, confirming the binding nature of judicial scrutiny of administrative fairness in selection processes within government service appointments.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
WPA/9187/2024 of SMT. ANITA MAHATO AND ANR. Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. CNR: WBCHCA0169382024 |
| 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 |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms prior coordinate bench decision in WPA 3566 of 2022 |
| Type of Law | Service law; Public recruitment in ICDS |
| Questions of Law | Whether exclusion of eligible candidates without reason from an earlier selection list for Anganwadi Workers/Helpers can be rectified by the court, and if subsequent appointments remain undisturbed when such exclusion is remedied. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court found that eligible candidates named in the first selection list, who were not considered for appointment without any explanation or justified administrative reason, are entitled to appointment. Judicial review is warranted when the administration fails to give reasons for excluding eligible candidates and follows an unexplained “pick and choose” policy. However, appointments of later-listed, eligible candidates remain undisturbed if there is no challenge to their eligibility. The decision rests on the principle that administrative selection processes must be fair, transparent, and reasoned. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | WPA 3566 of 2022 (coordinate Bench judgment dated 31.01.2023) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners, having been found eligible in the first selection list for Anganwadi posts in Purulia under ICDS, were not appointed, though subsequently eligible candidates from a second list were appointed with no explanation for the exclusion of first-list candidates. State produced current vacancy position, and court found no case of ineligibility against second-list appointees. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts dealing with similar government recruitment matters; may be cited for judicial review standards. |
| Follows | WPA 3566 of 2022 (coordinate Bench, Calcutta High Court) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that eligible candidates arbitrarily excluded from an earlier selection list in a public recruitment process have a right to be appointed, subject to available vacancies.
- Confirms the court’s power to intervene even after a subsequent list has been acted upon, provided appointments from the subsequent list are left undisturbed if their eligibility is unchallenged.
- The ruling reinforces that an administrative authority must provide reasoned justification for departing from precedence in selection lists.
- Appointment orders must be issued expeditiously within a strict timeline upon such judicial direction.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court considered the background where similarly placed candidates previously succeeded in a writ petition (WPA 3566 of 2022), where the exclusion of eligible candidates from the first selection list was not explained by the administration.
- Extracted the reasoning and directions from that prior judgment, emphasizing the lack of explanation for the “pick and choose” policy, as required in fair administrative processes.
- Noted that the State, in the present writ, produced current vacancy data and did not dispute the petitioners’ eligibility.
- Recognized that there was no allegation against the eligibility of those already appointed from the second selection list, citing the earlier coordinate Bench’s approach of not disturbing valid appointments.
- Applied the governing legal standards from the coordinate Bench’s precedent to direct immediate appointment of petitioners from the first list, compelling administrative compliance within three weeks.
- Ensured that justice is balanced: remedying arbitrary exclusion without unsettling other validly made appointments.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioners had been found eligible in the initial selection exercise and excluded without any stated justification.
- Sought appointment on the basis of their valid inclusion and eligibility from the first list.
Respondent (State)
- Acknowledged the current vacancy position across various ICDS projects in the Purulia district.
- Suggested that, if the Court so desired, appointments could be directed against existing vacancies to serve justice and equity.
- Produced the relevant Government Memorandum and a letter specifying current vacancies.
Factual Background
The petitioners, five in total across two writ petitions, had applied for appointment as Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) in Purulia, West Bengal. Despite being found eligible and their names appearing in the first selection list dated 25 February 2020, they were not appointed, and no reason for their exclusion was ever communicated. Subsequently, another list was prepared, and eligible candidates from that later list were appointed. The petitioners approached the court seeking identical relief as others previously granted appointment in WPA 3566 of 2022.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court referenced the applicable government rules and guidelines governing selection and appointment under the ICDS scheme, as contained in Government Memorandum No. 9530-SW/12 dated 09 November 2012.
- Emphasized the administrative obligation to act fairly and transparently in public recruitment, ensuring that reasons are provided for excluding candidates found eligible under earlier lists.
- The analysis was grounded in judicial review principles applicable to service law and public employment under such prescribed administrative norms.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
There is no dissenting or concurring opinion in the judgment. The order was passed by a single judge.
Procedural Innovations
- Directed appointment of the eligible petitioners within a strictly specified timeline (three weeks from communication of the order).
- Required parties to act on the server copy of the order downloaded from the official website, expediting implementation.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and follows the earlier coordinate Bench judgment in WPA 3566 of 2022, reinforcing settled law on judicial review in public recruitment processes.