High Court Of Calcutta
S. B. SINHA, MALAY KUMAR BASU
NARAYAN BAIDYA - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS (S.E.) - Respondent
M. A. T. 3466 Of 1998
Decided On : 10/14/1999
SCHOOL SERVICE COMMISSION ACT - INTERPRETATION - APPLICABILITY - SELECTION PROCESS - EFFECT OF NEW RULES ON PENDING SELECTION PROCESS - RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION - VESTED RIGHTS - RULE 28 OF THE MANAGEMENT RULES - SUBSTITUTION - EFFECT - DIRECTION BY DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION - VALIDITY - NON-OBSTINATE CLAUSES IN SECTIONS 7 AND 9 OF THE ACT - CONFLICT BETWEEN ACT AND DIRECTION - PREVAILING PROVISION - PURPOSE OF THE ACT - VALIDITY OF RULES - DIRECTORY NATURE OF DIRECTION - COMPLETION OF SELECTION PROCESS - RELEVANCE OF PRIOR PERMISSION - APPROVAL OF PANEL - EFFECTIVE DATE OF PROCEDURE FOR SELECTION OF SCHOOLS - RATIO DECIDENDI - DISTINCTION IN FACTS - AUTHORITY OF A DECISION - POINTS NOT ARGUED.
Fact of the Case:
A vacancy arose for the post of a teacher in a school. The Managing Committee of the school adopted a resolution for filling up the post and obtained prior permission from the District Inspector of Schools. An interview was held, but no panel was prepared. A writ petition was filed challenging the interview process and seeking a direction for a fresh interview. The trial court directed the District Inspector of Schools to consider the case of the petitioner and directed the school authority to hold a fresh interview. The District Inspector of Schools passed an order directing that the post would be filled up on the recommendation of the School Service Commission. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order of the District Inspector of Schools. The issue before the court was whether section 9 of the School Service Commission Act, 1997 applied to the instant case.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that section 9 of the School Service Commission Act, 1997 applied to the instant case. The court observed that the selection process had not been completed at the time the Act came into force and that the Act contained non-obstinate clauses, which were of wide amplitude. The court further held that in case of conflict between the Act and a direction issued by the Director of School Education, the former would prevail. The court also held that the direction issued by the Director of School Education was directory in nature and could not override the provisions of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether section 9 of the School Service Commission Act, 1997 applies to the instant case? 2. Whether the selection process was complete at the time the Act came into force? 3. Whether the Act contains non-obstinate clauses? 4. Whether in case of conflict between the Act and a direction issued by the Director of School Education, the former would prevail? 5. Whether the direction issued by the Director of School Education was directory in nature?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 9 of the School Service Commission Act, 1997 applies to the instant case as the selection process had not been completed at the time the Act came into force and the Act contains non-obstinate clauses, which are of wide amplitude. 2. In case of conflict between the Act and a direction issued by the Director of School Education, the former would prevail. 3. The direction issued by the Director of School Education was directory in nature and could not override the provisions of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
( 1 ) THE question which arises for consideration in this appeal is the interpretation of the provision of section 9 of the School Service Commission Act, 1997 (West Bengal Act No. IV of 1997 ).
( 2 ) THE fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The post of a teacher of English fell vacant in Baribhanga Bamacharan Vidyapith (hereinafter referred to as 'the said school' ). The Managing Committee of the said school adopted a resolution for filling up the post; wherefor a requisition was sent to District Inspector of Schools (S. E), South 24 Parganas, the prior permission wherefor was granted on 9. 12. 1996.
( 3 ) ON 17. 3. 97 interview was held and 19 candidates appeared at the interview. No panel was prepared whereafter; a writ petition was field by the respondent No. 11, which was marked as W. P. No. 18927 (W) of 1997. By an order dated 29. 9. 97, a learned Judge of this court directed the District Inspector of Schools to consider the case of the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order and the school authority was restrained from holding any interview for filling up the said post. The Managing Committee of the school was further directed to hold a fresh interview.
( 4 ) ON or about 27. 11. 1997 upon hearing the petitioner, the District Inspector of Schools passed an order, directing that the said post would be filled up on the recommendation of the School Service Commission. On 18. 9. 98 the writ petition was filed and was dismissed by reason of the impugned order dated 18. 9. 98.
( 5 ) THE question which arises for consideration is as to whether section 9 of the School Service Commission Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) has any application in the instant case?
( 6 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has, inter alia, submitted that the selection process having started from the date of grant of prior permission, the Recruitment Rules framed by the Director of School Education shall hold the field. It was submitted that the District Inspector of Schools was bound to carry out the order of the court irrespective of coming into force of the said Act. The learned counsel contends that when an Act does not contain any specific provision for its retrospective operation, it shall be prospective in nature and, thus, the selection process would be governed by the existing rules. Reliance in this connection has been placed on A. A. Calton v. The Director of Education and Anr. Reported in AIR 1983 SC 1143, Y. V. Rangaih and Ors. v. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Others, reported in AIR 1983 SC 853, Sukhdarshan Singh etc. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1990 SC 405, Basudeb Bag and Anr. v. Bhaskar Chandra Kar and Others. Reported in 1996 (1) CLJ 230 and two unreported decisions of this court in W. P. 4469 (W) of 1998 (Naresh Chandra Mondal v. D. I. of School (SE) disposed of on 7. 4. 98) and in W. P. No. 24509 (W) of 1997 (Kalpana Biswas v. State of West Bengal and Ors. deposed of 18. 12. 98 ).
( 7 ) IT was further submitted that the learned trial court erred in applying section 9 (2) of the said Act in the fact of this case inasmuch as the same ought to have been read down. The learned counsel contends that the effect of the relevant provision of the Recruitment Rules should have been considered while interpreting the provision of the said Act. It was also argued that as no panel was prepared, the writ petitioner-appellant ought to have been considered to be sole surviving candidate in the panel.
( 8 ) LEGISLATURE of the State of West Bengal enacted the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 with a view to establish a Board of Secondary Education in the State of West Bengal, to define the powers and functions of such Board and to provide for certain other matters connected therewith.
( 9 ) SECTION 45 of the said Act empowers the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purpose of this Act including the composition, po
REFERRED TO : A.A.Calton v. The Director of Education and Anr.
Sukhdarshan Singh etc. v. State of Rajasthan
Basudeb Bag and Anr. v. Bhaskar Chandra Kar and Ors.
P.Mahendran and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.
I.J.Divakar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh
Debasis Dutta v. State of West Bengal
Lalin Kumar Mahato v. State of West Bengal
The Regional Manager and Anr. v. Pawan Kumar Dubey
Mittal Engineering Works (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.