Tapen Sen, J.@mdashIn this Writ Petition, the Petitioner prays for an Order commanding upon the Respondents to recast the panel for the post of Auxiliary Nursing and Midwifery Trainee in the Puyan Health Sub-centre under the Haripur Gram Panchayat in Datan-II Block and place the Petitioner in the first position. The Petitioner has also made a prayer for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding upon the Respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4 to select the Petitioner as the first empanelled candidate for being sent to for training in a Government recognized Institution and thereafter, on completion of the said training, to appoint her in a Block Health sub-Centre on contract basis on a salary of Rs. 7000/- per month. The Petitioner has also prayed for an Order prohibiting the Respondents from selecting the Respondent No. 8. The Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the panel (Annexure- P4) by which the Respondent No. 8 has been placed at Serial No. 1 and the Petitioner, at Serial No. 2.
2. The facts as pleaded are that the Petitioner passed her School Final examination in the year 1997 and secured 1st Division marks being 61.5 %. The Petitioner has further stated that the Government of West Bengal circulated an Advertisement asking Applications from female Candidates for Auxiliary Nursing and Midwifery training for each Block Health sub-centre under all Panchayats fixing certain eligibility criteria.
3. According to the Petitioner, she had the requisite qualifications and therefore she applied. Thereafter, the Respondents prepared a panel and the Petitioner was shocked to find that she was placed in the 2nd position whereas the Respondent No. 1 was placed in the 1st position. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 8 had secured 59.11% marks whereas the Petitioner had secured 61.5 % marks and therefore, there was a glaring illegality.
4. An Affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the Respondent No. 8 in which it has been stated that there are two Health sub-centres in the locality, namely, Puyan and Brahman Khalisa. The Puyan Health Sub-Centre comprises of the villages Puyan (N+S) Gahirageria, Haripur and Takasole, whereas Brahman Khalisa Health Sub-centre comprises of the villages Brahman Khalisa (E+W) Agardiha Patna, Mahisagot Dalbarh and Haridrageria.
5. According to the Respondent No. 8, she is a resident of Village Gahirageria which is within Puyan Health Sub-Centre and her name is recorded in the Voters'' List. According to her, the Petitioner resides in Haridrageria which is within the Brahman Khalisa Health Sub-Centre. According to her, the Petitioner''s application therefore could not have been for village Puyan as she was a resident of Haridrageria. The Respondent No. 8 has further stated that a draft panel was prepared on 4.11.2008 vide Annexure- R2 and objections were called for within 5.11.2008 to 11.11.2008. The Respondent No. 8 filed her objection on 10.11.2008 against the Petitioner and for cancellation of her candidature as she was a resident of Brahman Khalisa Health Sub-Centre. Similarly the Petitioner also filed a complaint against her regarding marks. Pursuant to such objections and complaints, the authorities scrutinised the documents, issued Notices to all and hearing was held on 6.12.2008. In support of such statements, the Respondent No. 8 has collectively marked documents as Annexure- R3. It has been stated that thereafter on 6.12.2008, the Respondent Authorities, after giving opportunity of hearing, prepared and published the final Panel in which the Respondent No. 8 was again placed at the top under the Puyan Health sub-Centre and cancelled the candidature of the Petitioner and thereafter, the Respondent authorities issued a letter to the Respondent No. 8 asking her to undertake the training. On 12.12.2008, when the final Panel was prepared, it was mentioned that the Petitioner had wrongly applied for the Puyan Health sub-Centre without any Ration Card or voters'' Identity Card for that sub- Centre and therefore, they cancelled her candidature. This would be evident from Annexure - R4.
6. In reply to the aforementioned statements made, the Petitioner has submitted inter alia that as per the Advertisement, the Applicants being married, cannot be said that they are permanent residents of the village in which they are residing unless and until their ancestral house and the house of their in-laws are in the same village. Statements have also been made to the effect that her application was proper and that the Notice regarding hearing on 6.12.2008 was served upon her only at 8 A.M. on the same day without specifying anything in regard to the nature or scope of hearing and therefore she attended the hearing without having any knowledge with regard to the subject of the hearing and therefore, she was not aware with of the nature of the proceedings nor was prepared for the same. In paragraph 13 infra at Page 7, she has stated that the main object of the criteria of residence in the Advertisement was made with the reason that the Applicant should live near the Health Sub-centre so that she can be available at any point of time. She has also stated that she resides very near Puyan Health sub-Centre and that her name has been registered under the National Vaccination Scheme. She has further submitted that as per Article 16 that there cannot be any discrimination with regard to the residence and even assuming that she is not residing within Puyan Health sub-Centre, even then the Respondents could not have cancelled her candidature.
7. The Submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to the effect that there can be no discrimination on the ground of residence is undoubtedly correct but in this case, one has to bear in mind that these are selection of Trainees for Auxiliary Nurses-cum-Midwives. In other words, these are selection of Trainees who, after being trained, will have to attend to the call of ladies requiring their attention and help at any point of time. Such call could be in the late hours of the night also and unless such trainees reside in the same locality, there is every possibility that such persons who require their immediate help, may fall a victim of severe complications and therefore, while issuing the Notifications, the State made it absolutely clear that apart from being a Citizen of India, the Applicant must be living or be a resident of the concerned Health sub-Centre. This therefore comes within the provisions of Article 15(3) of the Constitution which lays down that the State shall have the liberty to make special provisions for women and children. Consequently, the arguments of the learned Counsel to the effect that her candidature could not have been cancelled on the ground of residence is a submission that cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of this case.
8. Apart from the aforesaid, this Court notices that by Annexure- P2, the State had very clearly laid down that residence would be one of the primary criteria for an applicant to apply and that she should be residing within the same Health sub-Centre. Since the Petitioner resides under the Haridrageria Health Sub-centre, she should not have therefore applied for the Puyan Health sub-Centre at all.
9. For the foregoing reasons stated above, this Court is not inclined to interfere. The Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall however, be no Order as to costs. Upon appropriate Application(s) being made, urgent Xeroxed Certified copy of this Judgment, may be given/issued expeditiously subject to usual terms and conditions.
