2006 Supreme(Cal) 790
High Court Of Calcutta
Before Mr. Justice Debasish Kar Gupta
KARTIK PANDIT - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. P. 26522 (W) Of 2006
Decided On : 12/15/2006
KISHORE DUTTA, RUDRANIL DEY, SAIKAT BANERJI
The court held that Rule 8(5) of the West Bengal Schools (Recruitment of Non-teaching Staff) Rules, 2005, was within the scope and ambit of the West Bengal Schools Control of Expenditure Act, 2005, and that it was a reasonable measure to control expenditure.
Headnote:
SCHOOLS CONTROL OF EXPENDITURE - WEST BENGAL SCHOOLS (RECRUITMENT OF NON-TEACHING STAFF) RULES, 2005 - SECTION 5, 8(5) - VALIDITY - Empowering the school authority to make a requisition to the employment exchange for sponsoring the name of eligible candidates for the selection process of non-teaching staff in a secondary school is valid and does not violate the provisions of the West Bengal Schools Control of Expenditure Act, 2005.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a candidate for the post of Clerk in Gazipur Balika Vidyalaya, challenged the validity of the West Bengal Schools (Recruitment of Non-teaching Staff) Rules, 2005, particularly Rule 8(5), which allowed only candidates sponsored by the employment exchange to participate in the interview process.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the validity of Rule 8(5) of the West Bengal Schools (Recruitment of Non-teaching Staff) Rules, 2005, holding that it was within the scope and ambit of the West Bengal Schools Control of Expenditure Act, 2005, and that it was a reasonable measure to control expenditure.
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 8(5) of the West Bengal Schools (Recruitment of Non-teaching Staff) Rules, 2005, is ultra vires the West Bengal Schools Control of Expenditure Act, 2005? 2. Whether the petitioner, who was not sponsored by the employment exchange, has a right to participate in the interview process for the post of Clerk in Gazipur Balika Vidyalaya?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Rule 8(5) of the West Bengal Schools (Recruitment of Non-teaching Staff) Rules, 2005, was within the scope and ambit of the West Bengal Schools Control of Expenditure Act, 2005, as it was a reasonable measure to control expenditure. 2. The court distinguished the case of Rabindranath Mahato v. State of West Bengal and Ors., (2005) 2 CLJ (Cal) 161, relied upon by the petitioner, on the ground that in that case there was no statutory rule in the field unlike the instant case.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court held that Rule 8(5) of the West Bengal Schools (Recruitment of Non-teaching Staff) Rules, 2005, was valid and did not violate the provisions of the West Bengal Schools Control of Expenditure Act, 2005.
( 2 ) WITH consent of both the parties this matter is taken up today and treating the same as on today's list.
( 3 ) THE petitioner files this application with a prayer to allow him to participate in the interview scheduled to be held on December 17, 2006 to prepare a panel for the post of Clerk in Gazipur Balika Vidyalaya, Village and P. O Gazipur, District - Howrah. The ground for challenge of this writ application are as follows : -In accordance with the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 1 of West Bengal Schools Control of Expenditure Bill, 2005 should come into force at once and the remaining sections should come into force on such date or dates and in such area or areas as the state Government may, by notification, appoint and different dates may be appointed for different sections or for different areas.
( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner the provisions of Section 2 to Section 22 of the aforesaid Act have been given effect to from December 27, 2005 but unless such notification is made available to the public no effect can be given to those provisions. Since the West Bengal Schools (Recruitment of Non-teaching Staff) Rules, 2005 came into force by virtue of Gazette notification dated December 27, 2005 that cannot be given effect to unless the provisions of Section 2 to Section 22 come into force prior to that date.
( 5 ) THE second submission made on behalf of the petitioner is this, in accordance with the provision of Section 22 of the said Act, Rules may be framed for carrying out the purpose of the Act. The purpose of the said act is to be controlled the expenditure but according to the petitioner there is no nexus of the provisions of Clause (5) (a) of Rule 8 of the said Rule to the aforesaid purpose of the said Act in allowing the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange only to participate in the interview for selection of non-teaching staff of a secondary school.
( 6 ) THE third submission made on behalf of the petitioner is this, section 5 of the said Act does not empower the authority to make a Rule for that purpose.
( 7 ) THE next submission made on behalf of the petitioner is this, in view of the Special Bench judgment in Rabindranath Mahato v. State of west Bengal and Ors. , reported in 2005 (2) CLJ (Cal) 161 all the eligible candidates are entitled to appear in the selection process in the instrumentalities of the stage in the event the name of such eligible candidates are not sponsored by the concerned employment exchange.
( 8 ) APPEARING on behalf of the State-respondent Mr. Saikat Banerjee, learned Advocate, submits that Notification No. 1265 SE (S)-ES/s/1a-3/ 2004 dated October 05, 2005 was published in the Kolkata Gazette extraordinary in October 06, 2005. By virtue of that notification the provisions of Sections 2 to 22 of the said Act have been given effect to in accordance with the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the said act. In accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 5 no school authority shall not appoint any teacher in a school in contravention of the provisions of this Act, or the provisions of the West Bengal School service Commission Act, 1997, or in contravention of any rules, orders, procedures or directions issued thereunder. In accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 22 the State Government may, by notification, make rules for carrying out the purposes of the said Act.
( 9 ) IT is further submitted by Mr. Banerjee that by virtue of Notification no. 1594 SE (S) dated December 26,2005 published in Kolkata Gazette extraordinary dated December 27, 2005 the said Rule has been promulgated. In accordance with the provisions of Clause (5) (a) of Rule 8 of the said rule, on receipt of the sanction from the District Inspector of schools, the School authority shall make a requisition to the employment exchange for sponsoring, within 45 days, name