2009 Supreme(Cal) 305

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, PRASENJIT MANDAL, JJ.
West Bengal Central School Service Commission - Appellant
Versus
Tauhid Alam - Respondent
Decided on : Apr 17,2009

A rule requiring a candidate willing to be selected as a teacher in any school, having a particular language as medium of instruction, to have such language as first or second or third language in course of his study at the Secondary Level/higher Secondary level or any subsequent Higher Level of Education, is not arbitrary or discriminatory and is a reasonable restriction imposed to facilitate proper teaching availing a particular medium of instruction.

Headnote:

EDUCATION - TEACHER APPOINTMENT - QUALIFICATION - ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT - VALIDITY - WEST BENGAL SCHOOL SERVICE COMMISSION (SELECTION OF PERSONS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF TEACHERS) RULES, 2006, RULE 5 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLES 14, 16, 19.

Fact of the Case:

The West Bengal School Service Commission published an advertisement inviting applications for the 7th Regional Level Selection Test (RLST) for the post of Urdu Teacher (Male Vacancy) in Bengali medium School for the Northern Region. The West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2006 came into force on June 6, 2006. Rule 5 of the said Rules of 2006 required a candidate willing to be selected as a teacher in any school, having Bengali or English or Hindi or Nepali or Telegu or Santhali or Urdu as the medium of instruction, must have Bengali or English or Hindi or Nepali or Telegu or Santhali or Urdu as first or second or third language in course of his study at the Secondary Level/higher Secondary level or any subsequent Higher Level of Education. The respondents, Tauhid Alam and Md. Mansur Alam, wanted to apply for the post of Urdu Teacher in respect of the vacancies in Northern Region earmarked for Bengali Medium Schools although, they did not have Bengali as a combination subject either at secondary or Higher Secondary or in any subsequent level of education. They filed a writ petition challenging the advertisement imposing such condition in terms of Rule 5 of the said Rules of 2006. The learned Single Judge passed an interim order permitting them to appear at the said selection test. The School service Commission preferred an appeal being aggrieved by the said interim order. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal. Tauhid and Mansur participated in the selection test. However, their results were not declared. The School Service Commission filed an Affidavit-in-Opposition in the writ proceeding inter alia contending that in absence of a challenge to Rule 5 they were not entitled to be considered for appointment. The learned Judge allowed the writ petition by striking down rule 5 inter alia on the following grounds: (i) Under Section 8 (1) of the West Bengal School Service commission Act, 1997 manner and scope of selection of persons for appointment to the post of teachers were prescribed. Section 17 provided that the State by notification would be entitled to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the said Act. Such power, however, could not mean that the authorities could frame rules which were unreasonable or in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution (ii) Rule 5 was arbitrary and violative of the provisions of Article 14 as there was no provision for any third language at the madhyamik, Higher Secondary or Graduation Level in the State. (iii) The restriction imposed by Rule 5 was wholly unreasonable. Being aggrieved, the State as well as School Service Commission preferred the instant appeals.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that Rule 5 of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2006, which required a candidate willing to be selected as a teacher in any school, having Bengali or English or Hindi or Nepali or Telegu or Santhali or Urdu as the medium of instruction, must have Bengali or English or Hindi or Nepali or Telegu or Santhali or Urdu as first or second or third language in course of his study at the Secondary Level/higher Secondary level or any subsequent Higher Level of Education, was not arbitrary or discriminatory and was a reasonable restriction imposed to facilitate proper teaching availing a particular medium of instruction.

Issues: 1. Whether Rule 5 of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2006, which required a candidate willing to be selected as a teacher in any school, having Bengali or English or Hindi or Nepali or Telegu or Santhali or Urdu as the medium of instruction, must have Bengali or English or Hindi or Nepali or Telegu or Santhali or Urdu as first or second or third language in course of his study at the Secondary Level/higher Secondary level or any subsequent Higher Level of Education, was arbitrary or discriminatory? 2. Whether the restriction imposed by Rule 5 was reasonable?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the true purport of Rule 5 was to facilitate proper communication between the teacher and the student so that the students may not suffer due to language problem. 2. The Court also held that the welfare of the student is of paramount importance and the restriction, if any, imposed by the special Rule is only to facilitate proper teaching availing a particular medium of instruction. A teacher having no appropriate qualification in the said medium would not be fit for the said post. The said Rule is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, as on a plain reading the true purport is apparent.

Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the judgment and order under appeal was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed.