WP(C) 835/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. P. KATAKEY The petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged the selection pr ocess initiated by the respondent authorities for selection of candidates for en gagement as ASHA Supervisor (Facilitator) in respect of Kakajan Block Primary He alth Centre, in the district of Jorhat and as such both the writ petitions are t aken up together for hearing and disposal, as agreed to by the learned counsel f or the parties. 2. WP(C) No.835/2009 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the list dated 22.01.2009 prepared by the district level committee, wherein the name of t he petitioner does not find place and on the basis of which the second and the f inal phase of selection was conducted at the State level by the State level sele ction committee for selection and engagement as ASHA Supervisor (Facilitator), o n the ground that though pursuant to the advertisement dated 22.10.2008 she appl ied for selection and did well in the district level selection, she was not sele cted and her name was left out from such list only with a view to accommodate ot her candidates in the locality though according to her having regard to her qual ification, experience and performance in the interview, she ought to have been s elected by the district level committee. 3. WP(C) No.2465/2009 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the fina l select list dated 11.06.2009 published in a local daily newspaper on 12.06.200 9 by the Mission Director, National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), reflecting the names of the selected candidate for engagement as ASHA Supervisor (Facilitator) in respect of Kakajan Block PHC, where the petitioner’s name does not appear, on the same ground as taken in WP(C) No.835/2009, apart from the ground that while making such selection, the provisions of the Assam Scheduled Castes and Schedul ed Tribes (Reservation of Vacancies and Posts) Act, 1978 has not been followed a nd she being the lone candidate from the Schedule Caste community ought to have been selected and engaged. 4. In none of the writ petitions, the petitioners, however, arraigned any o f the selected candidates though the final select list dated 11.06.2009 was prep ared and published by the Mission Director, NRHM, in respect of Kakajan Block PH C in the district of Jorhat. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned standing counsel, Health Department, appearing for the respondents. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.835/2009 that she having requisite qualification and experience and doing wel l in the district level selection conducted by the district level committee, oug ht to have been selected for the purpose of second phase of selection at the Sta te level, which was not done only with a view to accommodate some other persons in the locality. In respect of the petitioner in WP(C) No.2465/2009, it has been submitted that she also did well in the second and final stage of selection at the State level, but in spite of the same she was not selected with a view to ac commodate other persons, who are less meritorious than the petitioner. According to the learned counsel the petitioner in the said writ petition being the candi date belonging to the Schedule Caste community is also entitled to the benefit o f reservation policy, but the same has not been given by the respondent authorit ies in as much as the provisions of the 1978 Act have not been followed while ma king the selection and engagement. 7. Referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed in WP(C) No.835/2009, the learned standing counsel, Health Department, has submitted that the petitioner in the said writ petition having place at Serial No.27 at the district level sel ection, she having secured 13 marks out of 50 and the cut off mark being 17.5, s he was not selected by such district level committee and as such there is no ill egality in preparing the list by such district level committee. Relating to WP(C ) No.2465/2009, relying on the affidavit-in-opposition filed therein, it has bee n submitted by the learned standing counsel that the petitioner having not done well and better than the other selected candidates, she was not selected by the State level committee. It has further been submitted that the engagement of the ASHA Supervisor (Facilitator) being contractual fixed pay engagement for a perio d of 6(six) months with the provision of extension by executing fresh contract s ubject to satisfactory performance and not being against any posts, the provisio ns of the 1978 Act and the Rules framed thereunder are not applicable. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings. 9. One of the grounds on which the selection of candidates for engagement a s ASHA Supervisor (Facilitator) has been challenged is that the petitioners did well in the interview conducted by the respective committees at the respective l evels i.e. in the district level and the State level and in spite of that they w ere not selected. Such contention, however, has been refuted by the respondents in the affidavit filed. The writ court cannot sit over the decision of the selec tion committee in awarding the marks to any candidate. The court cannot sit on a ppeal on the selection and set aside the marks allotted by the selection committ ee and award any mark to any candidate. It is the prerogative of the selection c ommittee to judge a candidate and to allot marks on the basis of the performance . It is no doubt correct that the writ court can interfere with the selection ma de, if it is in violation of any provisions of the Act and the Rules/guidelines or in case of arbitrary selection. The petitioners in the present writ petitions except stating that they did well in the interview and, therefore, they ought t o have been selected, have not pleaded anything more. The court cannot on the ba sis of such vague statement interfere with the selection made. That apart, the s elected candidates are not made parties, in these writ petitions. 10. The next contention of the petitioner in WP(C) No.2465/2009 is that the selection and engagement of candidates as ASHA Supervisor (Facilitator) is not v alid, as the provisions of the 1978 Act and the Rules framed thereunder have not been followed. It is not in dispute that the ASHA Supervisors (Facilitators) ar e the creation of Government of India sponsored scheme and are engaged on contra ctual basis at a monthly fixed amount and for a fixed period of time. The provis ions of 1978 Act applies to the appointment to services and posts in any office of the State Government, a local or statutory authority constituted under any St ate Act for the time being in force or a Corporation in which not less than fift y-one per cent of the paid up share capital is held by the State Government and includes Universities and Colleges affiliated to the Universities, Primary, Seco ndary and Multipurpose Schools and also other educational institutions, which ar e owned or aided by the State Government and also includes an establishment in P ublic Sector. 11. The engagement of ASHA Supervisor (Facilitator) is contractual, under th e Govt. of India scheme, for a fixed period of time and not against any post or service under the Government and as such the provisions of the 1978 Act is not a pplicable in such engagement. Moreover, as noticed above, none of the selected c andidates has been arraigned as party respondent in the writ petition, in the ab sence of whom, the relief claimed in the writ petitions cannot also be granted. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the writ peti tions are devoid of any merit and as such the same are dismissed. No cost.