SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 506

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HRISHIKESH ROY, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Ali Hossain Mandal & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
West Bengal Board Of Primary Education & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1873 Of 2024 with Civil Appeal No. 1874 Of 2024 And Civil Appeal Nos. 1875-1876 Of 2024
Decided On : 09-05-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gohlam, Adv.Mr. Vinay Navare Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Anindo Mukherjee, Adv. Dr. Ram Kishore Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Mohammad Usman Siddiqui, Adv. Mrs. Aisha Siddiqui, Adv. Ms. Sakeena Quidwai, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR Mr. Abhishek Amritanshu, Adv. Mr. Hassan Zubair Waris, Adv. Mr. Aakarsh, Adv. Ms. Suchit Singh Rawat, Adv. Ms. Shivangi, Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv. Ms. Kshitij Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Soumik Ghosal, AOR Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR Mr. Abhishek Amritanshu, Adv. Mr. Hassan Zubair Waris, Adv. Ms. Shivangi, Adv. Mr. Aakarsh, Adv. Mr. Suchit Singh Rawat, Adv. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR Ms. Srija Choudhury, Adv. Ms. Osheen Bhat, Adv. Ms. Nitipriya Kar, Adv. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv. Ms. Kshitij Singh, Adv. Ms. Anju Thomas, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv. Ms. Manisha T. Karia, AOR Mr. Rohan Trivedi, Adv. Ms. Swapnil Baudh, Adv. Mr. Deepin Shani, Adv. Ms. Ananya Arora, Adv. M/S. Equity Lex Associates, AOR Mr. Salman Khurshid, Adv. Mrs. Naghma Imtiaz, Adv. Mr. Zargham Ahmed, Adv. Ms. Sidra Khan, Adv. Ms. Riddhi Goyal, Adv. Ms. Sonika Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Neha Rathi, AOR Mr. Kamal Kishore, Adv. Ms. Kajal Giri, Adv. Mr. Lavkesh Bhambhani, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Pratap, Adv. Mr. Harshwardhan Thakur, Adv. Mr. Parminder Singh Bhullar, AOR Mr. Dibyadyuti Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Sumedha Halder, Adv. Mr. Ali Ahasan Alamgir, Adv. Mr. Asif Iqbal, Adv. Mr. Rohit Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Srikanth Reddy Gopavaram, Adv. Mr. Samreddy Bharath Simha Redd, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR Mr. Bijay Kumar Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Ms. Suhasni Bangopadhyaya, Adv. Tejasavni Ghose, Adv. Mr. Binay Kumar Das, AOR Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR Mr. Anindya Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Raghavendra Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Suden, Adv. M/S. Mukesh Kumar Singh And Co., AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Pawan Kumar Dhiman, Adv. Mr. Ikshit Singhal, Adv. Ms. Kajal Rani, Adv. Ms. Sujata K Muni, Adv. Mr. J S Maratha, Adv. Mr. Rahul Maratha, Adv. Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick, AOR Ms. Manisha Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kushwaha, Adv. Ms. Neerja Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sohit Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Singh, Adv. Mr. Devesh Kumar Mishra, AOR Mr. Satender Kr. Vashistha, Adv. Mr. Rauf Rahim, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, AOR Mr. Ali Rahim, Adv. Mr. Jatin Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mandeep Kalra, AOR Ms. Chitrangada Singh, Adv. Mr. Rauf Rahim, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dibyendu Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Firdous Samim, Adv. Mr. Ali Asghar Rahim, Adv. Ms. Piyali Paul, Adv. Ms. Fatima Baig, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Appointment – A Panel or a Merit List cannot be treated as if it exists in perpetuity, which will facilitate making appointments as and when required – Even when vacancies are notified and adequate number of candidates are shortlisted, these candidates do not acquire indefeasible right to be appointed against those vacancies.

Headnote:

Service Law – Appointment – A Panel or a Merit List cannot be treated as if it exists in perpetuity, which will facilitate making appointments as and when required – When Panel expires or after selection process is over with most posts being filled, benefit of appointments cannot be given unless Panel’s validity is legally extended – Even when vacancies are notified and adequate number of candidates are shortlisted, these candidates do not acquire indefeasible right to be appointed against those vacancies – Multiple factors are to be taken into account by Board, including suitability as per district, age, language, etc. before appointments are made – Impugned Judgment rendered by Division Bench and earlier direction given by Single Judge accordingly set aside – Concerned Writ Petitioners and others who are sailing with this group, do not have any legitimate claim for appointments, to remaining vacancies in the form of 23.12.2020 recruitment process. (Paras 25, 26, 29 and 30)

Facts of the case:

Origin of dispute lies in Board’s Notification dated 23.12.2020 for filling up 16,500 vacancies of primary school teachers with a qualification criterion of possessing minimum NCTE-prescribed training qualification and having qualified Teacher Eligibility Test 2014. A few candidates who had not yet been appointed approached Calcutta High Court seeking directions that Board fill up remaining vacant seats by reducing cut-off marks in each category.

Findings of Court:

Impugned judgment rendered by Division Bench on 11.11.2022 and earlier direction given by Single Judge on 26.09.2022 are accordingly set aside. Concerned 252 Writ Petitioners and others who are sailing with this group, do not have any legitimate claim for appointments, to remaining vacancies in the form of the 23.12.2020 recruitment process.

Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Hrishikesh Roy, J.

1. Heard Mr. Jaideep Gupta and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Vinay Navare, Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Mr. Salman Khurshid, Mr. Rauf Rahim and Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, learned senior counsel, Ms. Sumedha Halder and Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents & impleaders.

2. Relevant facts for the sake of convenience are taken from Civil Appeal Nos. 1875-1876 of 2024, filed by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education [hereinafter referred to as ‘Board’].

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The origin of the dispute lies in the Board’s Notification dated 23.12.2020 for filling up 16,500 vacancies of primary school teachers with a qualification criterion of possessing the minimum NCTE-prescribed training qualification and having qualified the Teacher Eligibility Test 2014 [hereinafter referred to as ‘TET-2014’]. Thereafter, a Merit List for 15,284 candidates was notified on 15.02.2021. Subsequently, two more Merit Lists were published, covering all the 16,500 vacancies that were notified by the Board. As per the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Recruitment Rules, 2016’], the said panel of candidates was then sent across to the respective District Primary School Councils (‘appointing authority’ under S.5 of Recruitment Rules 2016) to make appointments therefrom.

4. At that shape, a few candidates who had not yet been appointed approached the Calcutta High Court seeking directions that the Board fill up the remaining vacant seats by reducing cut-off marks in each category. After the unfilled vacancies were reconciled, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 26.09.2022 directed that the 252 Writ Petitioners be granted appointments against these unfilled 3929 vacancies. Subsequently, the Board notified the filling up of a fresh set of 11,765 vacancies for primary school teachers vide Notification dated 21.10.2022, considering the candidature from TET-2014 as well as TET-2017 candidates.

5. Immediately thereafter, the Board filed an appeal (MAT No. 1734/2022 & CAN 1/2022) challenging the Single Judge’s order of 26.09.2022. In dismissing the Board’s appeal, the Division Bench directed that the balance 3929 vacancies of primary school teachers be treated exclusively as part of the 16,500 vacancies pertaining to TET-2014 candidates only, for which recruitment process had commenced vide Notification dated 23.12.2020.

6. The Division Bench concluded that the entire TET-2014 selection as well as the appointment process was fraught with irregularities. The Merit List contained only ranks of the candidates without offering their comparative marks. It was observed that not just the TET-2014 candidates or Writ Petitioners before the High Court but the Board itself was not aware of the cut-off mark at which appointments had ceased. Marks were not disclosed to the unsuccessful candidates and they were given only one-line intimation that they were ‘not included in the present Merit List’. These features shrouded the entire selection process into deeper suspicion, thereby further vitiating the appointment process as opined by the Division Bench.

7. With this understanding, the Division Bench directed that the TET-2014 Eligibility List be treated as the Merit List to determine inter-se positions of the TET-2014 candidates, including those 252 applicants who had filed Writ Petitions before the High Court. Consequently, the Single Bench order dated 26.09.2022 was modified to the effect that the 3929 left over vacancies were extended to all the remaining TET- 2014 candidates, in descending order of their inter-se positions in the TET Eligibility List 2014, notwithstanding the fact that these vacancies were carried forward through a fresh recruitment Notification dated 29.09.2022.

8. Appeals herein have been filed by the Board & others to challenge the Division Bench judgment dated 11.11.2022 of the Ca

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top