Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 743
High Court Of Calcutta
Arun Kumar Mitra, J.
SHEO PRASAD SINGH - Appellant
Versus
WEST BENGAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION - Respondent
W. P 213 Of 2000
Decided On : 11/28/2006
NANDALAL NAYAK
The court emphasized the importance of following proper procedures and adhering to the Recruitment Rules in the selection process for teachers. The court held that the school authorities and the D.I. failed to comply with the established rules, resulting in irregularities and denial of the petitioner's rights.
Headnote:
SCHOOL SERVICE COMMISSION ACT - Recruitment Rules - Interpretation - Appointment of Assistant Teacher in English - Selection Committee's refusal to prepare a panel - District Inspector of Schools' (D.I.) approval of the panel - Legality - Petitioner's entitlement to appointment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an applicant for the post of Assistant Teacher in English at Nikash Monaichandi Junior High School, challenged the District Inspector of Schools' (D.I.) order rejecting the selection panel prepared by the school authorities. The petitioner alleged irregularities in the selection process, including the school's failure to consider his B.Ed. qualification and award marks for the oral and demonstration tests.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had successfully appeared for the interview and was ranked first in the selection panel. However, the school authorities failed to submit a complete panel to the D.I., which led to delays and irregularities in the approval process. The D.I., instead of following the proper procedure, issued a memo stating that the school authority did not prepare any panel and denied the petitioner's request for approval.
Issues: 1. Whether the school authorities acted in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in preparing the selection panel? 2. Whether the D.I. properly exercised his authority in approving the selection panel? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment based on his performance in the selection process?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the school authorities failed to comply with the Recruitment Rules by not considering the petitioner's B.Ed. qualification and not awarding marks for the oral and demonstration tests. This constituted a violation of the petitioner's rights and the principles of fair selection. 2. The court found that the D.I. failed to follow the proper procedure for approving the selection panel. Instead of referring the matter to the Director of School Education, as required by the rules, the D.I. issued a memo rejecting the panel without providing any valid reason. 3. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to appointment based on his performance in the selection process. The court directed the D.I. to approve the selection panel and send it to the school authorities for the petitioner's appointment.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the D.I.'s impugned memo, and directed the D.I. to approve the selection panel and send it to the school authorities for the petitioner's appointment within a fortnight.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed before this court challenging the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, hooghly (S. E.) being annexure- 'j' to the writ petition. This order was passed by the said D. I. (Hooghly) in compliance with the order passed by Hon'ble Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose on 01/04/1999 in W. P. No. 29466 (W) of 1997. The fact made out in the writ petition in brief is as follows:
( 2 ) THE School named "nikash Monaichandi Junior High School (hereinafter termed as said School) wanted to appoint a teacher in language group (English) and as such prayed for prior permission from the D. I. of Schools, Hooghly and the said D. I. accordingly, granted permission to appoint an English teacher having qualification B. A. passed with English as combination subject, preferably trained.
( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner it appeared from the memo of the D. I. through which prior permission was granted, the name of a candidate one Sri Sachindranath Ghosh was forwarded from the live register maintained by the Office of the D. I. Said Sri Sachindranath Ghosh was working as Clerk of the said School.
( 4 ) HOWEVER, getting the said prior permission from the D. I. to fill up the post, the School authorities sent requisition to the regional employment Exchange, Seerampore for sending names. On receipt of the said requisition, the regional Employment Exchange, Seerampore sponsored the names of twelve persons for the said post of Assistant teacher in English.
( 5 ) THE Secretary of the Managing Committee of the said School sent letters of interview to the respective candidates. The petitioner was also directed to send the attested copies of certificates and testimonials to the said School before ten days of holding the said interview.
( 6 ) IN summary, the petitioner got the interview for the post of assistant Teacher in English of the said School. The petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee on or about 24th August, 1997. The said Selection Committee consisted of five members. According to the petitioner, he successfully appeared at the oral and administrative tests. After the interview as held, the Secretary of the managing Committee in coming to know from the markings that the petitioner was placed as No. 1 in the said panel inasmuch as the petitioner was the only candidate having B. Ed. qualification, in collusion and connivance with few members of the Selection committee forcibly compelled the petitioner to write on a paper as per their diktats.
( 7 ) SINCE the petitioner was not a local candidate, the petitioner had no alternative but to write as per the diktat as indicated above in the said paper and to put his signature over there.
( 8 ) IT is alleged by the petitioner that the said paper was procured by the Secretary of the Managing Committee upon sole consideration that the petitioner was the only B. Ed. and according to the recruitment rules none, including the Clerk of the School was able to acquire marks above the petitioner.
( 9 ) THE petitioner further alleged that immediately after the said incident he lodged a complaint before the Head of the institution stating that he had to sign the said paper under compelling circumstances at the diktat of one of the members of the Selection Committee.
( 10 ) THE petitioner alleged that the statements given on the said paper was not at all genuine and the petitioner is conversant with bengali language and is quite competent to teach in any junior High school in the concerned subject.
( 11 ) ON or about 26th August, 1997 the petitioner also lodged a complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of Jangipara Police Station, hooghly where the writ petitioner mentioned the same and prayed for taking necessary action. Again, on 26th August, 1997 the petitioner lodged another complaint with the Officer-in-Charge, Seerampore police Station, Hooghly.
( 12 ) ON 27th August, 1997 the petitioner also made a representation before the Distric
