‘Silence is not governance’: Calcutta High Court slams ‘uncertainty’ in 10-year-old ASHA recruitment row

An ASHA facilitator acts as a supervisor and guide for 10–25 Accredited Social Health Activists.

Noting that public recruitment, even when contractual, carries with it a constitutional responsibility, the order added that procedural ambiguity should not undermine public confidence and burden the constitutional courts with avoidable litigation.

The court added that governance to be credible must be as transparent in its silence as it is in its actions.

Background

• The petitioner moved the court against the state of West Bengal, alleging irregularities in a selection process initiated in October 2015.
• According to the petitioner, who is an applicant under the OBC-B category, the authorities failed to formally conclude or cancel the initial recruitment process before issuing a subsequent notification in February 2016 to fill remaining vacancies.
• She alleged nepotism and arbitrariness, claiming that candidates with lower ranks were engaged while she was excluded.

Findings

• Even when engagement is contractual in nature, recruitment by state authorities must conform to the standards of fairness, transparency and procedural propriety.
• Public employment in whatever form is a facet of public trust.
• The petitioner was afforded full participation in the selection process relevant to her category.
• The merit list was prepared based on written and computer proficiency test, clearly placing another candidate above the petitioner in the OBC-B category.
• Once the said candidate was selected and joined the service, the vacancy stood exhausted.
• Mere inclusion in a panel or waiting list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment.
• Recruitment processes must be concluded with clarity and formal closure so that ambiguity does not eclipse transparency.
• Administrative imperfection by itself does not invite judicial interdiction, unless it results in demonstrable illegality or denial of a vested right.
• The absence of a clear, written closure of the earlier process and the simultaneous initiation of a fresh notification created an overlap that lent itself to confusion, contest, and competing claims.
• Administrative actions, particularly in matters of public engagement, must speak with clarity; silence or ambiguity at such stages breeds avoidable grievance.
• Judicial review does not extend to rewriting selection outcomes where the process, viewed as a whole, does not disclose arbitrariness of a degree warranting intervention.
• Administrative authorities must ensure that recruitment processes are concluded with transparency and finality so that it does not suffer under the burden of procedural ambiguity and citizens are not compelled to seek judicial redress for want of timely and reasoned administrative action.
• Administrative authorities must also ensure formal closure and effective communication of the same.