Dismissing a writ petition challenging a recruitment panel for ANM posts, the court found the panel valid as the order of merit was decided on aggregate marks per compulsory subject, where the petitioner's average was lower than the private respondent's.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
S/L 25 28.07.2023 Court. No. 29 Sourav SKB
WPA 14211 of 2009
Jyotsna Satpati (Satpathi) Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Tapash Kumar Sinha Mr. Arunava Pati
…for the petitioner.
Mr. Susanta Pal Mr. Pradip Patra
… for the respondent no. 5.
2
basis of carrying marks in the Madhyamik or equivalent examination. Drawing attention to Annexure P-3 at Page 20 of the instant writ petition, it is contended that marks of the private respondent no. 5, Jhuma Mandal (Dangar) in the merit list has been placed in Sl. No. 1 while the name of the present petitioner has been placed in Sl. No. 2 on the basis of the percentage of marks but from the aggregate marks column, it would reveal that the private respondent no. 5 obtained aggregate marks of 435 while the present petitioner obtained aggregate marks of 477. It is thus, contended that in view of the excess aggregate marks of the present petitioner, the respondent State authorities ought to have placed the petitioner in Sl. No. 1 instead of the private respondent no. 5.
3
obtained by the petitioner and the private respondent no. 5 in the additional subjects as per Rules.
“…. ….. the order of merit was decided on the basis of aggregate marks obtained in the compulsory subjects of Madhyamik Examination (i.e. excluding the number of additional subject from total marks) of the candidates………”
4
the aggregate marks of the private respondent no. 5 comes to 436-1 (being the additional marks obtained in the additional subject)= 435/8=54.38% which is higher in aggregate than the petitioner as rightly claimed by the learned advocate for the private respondent no. 5 as well as by the State respondents in their report as mentioned above.
(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the selection panel for the post of Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife was illegal or irregular for placing a petitioner with higher marks below a private respondent with fewer marks.
Whether the rule of ranking candidates based on aggregate marks per subject was correctly applied in this case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jyotsna Satpati (Satpathi)
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Jhuma Mandal (Dangar)
Partha Sarathi Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
