2012 Supreme(Cal) 927

High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
HARISH TANDON, J.
Susmita Bhowmick & Another
Versus
The Chairman, Ad hoc Committee Midnapore District Primary School Council & Others
W.P. No. 5137 (w) of 1996
Decided On : 14-12-2012

The selection process for the appointment of primary teachers must be conducted in accordance with the Recruitment and Leave Rules of Primary Teacher, 1991, and any irregularities in the process can lead to the quashing and setting aside of the entire recruitment process.

Headnote:

PRIMARY EDUCATION - Recruitment and Leave Rules of Primary Teacher, 1991 - Applicability - Selection process undertaken in 1996 for appointment of primary teachers - Whether conducted in accordance with the 1991 Rules - Irregularities found in the selection process - Entire recruitment process quashed and set aside - Fresh recruitment process to be undertaken in accordance with the 1991 Rules.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, unsuccessful candidates in the 1996 selection process for primary teachers, challenged the panel prepared in contravention of the statutory rules. The selection process was initiated before the bifurcation of the Medinipore district and vacancies were notified to the Employment Exchange in 1987. However, due to intervening litigations, the process could not be completed. Subsequently, fresh vacancies were notified in 1991 and 1992, and the District Primary School Councils were directed to prepare panels in accordance with the law and additional posts sanctioned by the State Government. Several writ petitions were filed by an association espousing the cause of the aspiring candidates, challenging the process and the manner of selection. These petitions were disposed of in 1989, holding that appointments made to untrained candidates were unauthorized and illegal. An appeal against this judgment was allowed in 1991, directing the District Primary School Councils to take steps for the preparation of a fresh panel in accordance with the law. The Division Bench also directed that 50% of the normal vacancies be filled by trained candidates, and the remaining 50% by considering the candidature of untrained candidates along with trained candidates on a rational and reasonable principle. A special writ petition against this order was disposed of, permitting the petitioners therein to challenge the panel if it was inconsistent with the directions of the Division Bench. Pursuant to the leave granted, some aggrieved persons filed a writ petition alleging that the competent authority was preparing the panel in disregard of the Division Bench's order. An interim order was passed, directing the authorities concerned to prepare the panel in accordance with the Division Bench's order, after giving an opportunity to all necessitated persons to appear before the Interview Board. During the hearing of the writ petition, the Division Bench appointed two Special Officers to inspect the records and submit a report. The report reflected gross irregularities in the preparation of the panel for two districts, Medinipore and Howrah. The Division Bench, in its judgment dated March 30, 1994, recorded the irregularities and directed the Director of School Education to reconsider the matter, having due regard to the report of the Special Officers. The Director was further directed to recast the panel, and in the event of irregularities, the eligible candidates were to be given appointments, while the illegally favored persons were to be kept waiting until further vacancies were notified. However, some relief was granted to the appointed persons to continue in service until the matter was considered by the Director. A special leave petition against the Division Bench's order was disposed of in 1995, modifying the order to the extent that merely recasting the panel would not meet the ends of justice and the legitimate aspirations of the bonafide and deserving candidates. The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the panels prepared for the districts of Malda and Medinipore and directed the respective Councils to prepare fresh panels in accordance with the law, keeping in view the directions of the Division Bench's order dated May 10, 1991. The present writ petition alleged that despite the specific direction of the Supreme Court, the subsequent panel was nothing but a replica of the earlier panel, which was quashed and set aside by the Apex Court. It was further alleged that candidates less qualified than the petitioners were still retained in the impugned panel, and even candidates who did not have the eligible qualification and were included in the panel that was canceled by the Apex Court were still included in the impugned panel. It was also alleged that certain candidates included in the canceled panel under the general category had been shown in the impugned panel under the Schedule Caste Category and vice versa. The petitioners contended that the direction passed by the Division Bench on May 10, 1991, which was affirmed by the Apex Court to fill up 50% from the normal vacancies from the trained candidates and the remaining 50% of the normal vacancies by considering the claim of the trained candidates vis-à-vis the untrained candidates on the basis of some rational and reasonable principle, was not followed in preparing the impugned panel. Numerous applications were filed by different persons claiming to be interested and affected by any decision taken in this writ petition, seeking their addition, which was allowed from time to time.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the selection process undertaken in 1996 for the appointment of primary teachers was conducted in gross contravention of the order passed by the Supreme Court and the relevant statutory rules. It observed that the irregularities pointed out in the report of the Special Officers appointed by the Division Bench in an earlier writ proceeding remained, and therefore, the panel could not withstand because of the fact that the earlier panel was canceled by the Supreme Court on the basis of such irregularities. The Court further found that the direction made by the Division Bench on May 10, 1991, had not been followed in preparing the impugned panel, and therefore, the same was liable to be quashed and canceled. It also noted that the report of the Director of School Education disclosed the infirmities and/or irregularities in the preparation of the impugned panel.

Issues: 1. Whether the selection process undertaken in 1996 for the appointment of primary teachers was conducted in accordance with the Recruitment and Leave Rules of Primary Teacher, 1991? 2. Whether the irregularities found in the selection process were sufficient to quash and set aside the entire recruitment process?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The selection process undertaken in 1996 for the appointment of primary teachers was conducted in clear contravention to the statutory rules, as evidenced by the report of the Special Officers appointed by the Division Bench in an earlier writ proceeding. 2. The irregularities found in the selection process, including the inclusion of ineligible candidates, the retention of candidates from the canceled panel, and the non-compliance with the directions of the Division Bench and the Supreme Court, were sufficient to quash and set aside the entire recruitment process.

Final Decision: The Court quashed and set aside the entire recruitment process and the panel prepared thereupon. It directed the authorities to initiate the proceeding in the light of the observation made in Chittaranjan Bhunia's judgment amongst the candidates who were considered in the said recruitment process. If some of the appointed candidates were found ineligible to be included in the panel, the authority would forthwith terminate their appointments and shall give the appointments to the eligible candidates forthwith. The authorities while doing so shall also grant the notional benefit to the eligible candidates who have been included in the panel in place of those ineligible candidates and such notional benefit shall be given form the date of the appointment of the non-deserving candidates. The entire process should be completed by the authority concerned within ten weeks from the date of the communications of this judgment. Till the preparation of panel afresh is made, the persons who are continuing in service shall remain to continue the same and shall be paid of admissible benefits.