Petitioner filed writ challenging the selection of Opposite Party No. 7 as ASHA via lottery due to lack of unanimity among Self Help Groups. Court held selection was transparent and lawful, dismissing petition to avoid unsettling the settled matter after eight years.
Writ application dismissed without interference with engagement of Opposite Party No. 7.
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.
W.P.(C) No. 822 of 2010
1
Perused the record. The petitioner has filed this application challenging the illegality and irregularity made by opposite parties for appointment of ASHA in Nuabandha Village under Tihidi Block and further challenges the selection of opposite party no.7 to the said post.
The petitioner pleaded in the writ application that majority of Self Help Groups recommended her name, therefore, she should have been given engagement for the post ASHA. But the guideline prescribes that unless there is unanimity on one person then selection of ASHA shall be done through procedure of drawing the lottery from among the names in presence of Ward Members and representative of Self Help Groups. Consequentially, the petitioner could not be appointed as ASHA, where as the opposite party no.7 was engaged as ASHA by following due procedure of selection, which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ application.
Pursuant to notice issued on 16.02.2010, the opposite parties no. 4 and 5 have filed their counter affidavit and have stated that the majority of the Self Help Groups did not support the candidature of the petitioner. Out of five Self Help Groups represented in the meeting, only two Self Help Groups supported her
2
candidature and the opposite party no.7 was supported by rest three Self Help Groups. As there was no unanimous decision in the said meeting, selection committee took a decision to go for a lottery process. The opposite party no.7 was selected following lottery process in presence of all Ward Members and Self Help Group members. After proceeding was completed, all of them have singed the said document. None of the applicant, except the petitioner objected for lottery process. The petitioner in the said meeting of the lottery process went away and did not remain present as she was claiming that she should be selected for the post of ASHA on the ground that majority of Self Help Groups supported her candidature. As the selection has been done by following due procedure, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the opposite parties.
Considering the pleadings on record it appears that the selection has been done by following due process of selection as envisaged under the Rules by adopting lottery procedure. Since there is no unanimity with regard to selection of ASHA by the Self Help Groups, to have a more transparent and feasible selection, procedure has been adopted as a lottery system and all the members, except the petitioner, have agreed the same to continue the procedure. The opposite party no.7 has been selected, thereby, it cannot be said that the opposite parties have
3
committed any illegality or irregularity so as to interfere with the order of engagement of opposite party no.7 as ASHA at this stage. The selection has already been over since 2010 and in the meantime eight years have passed. In that view of the matter, this Court does not want to unsettle the settled issue and accordingly finds no merit in this writ application and the same is hereby dismissed.
……………………..…… Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J
Ajaya
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court can interfere with the selection of ASHA through lottery process in absence of unanimity by Self Help Groups.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment as ASHA on ground of majority support.
Whether the challenged selection can be quashed after eight years of settlement.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Opposite Party No. 7
Dr. B.R. Sarangi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
