Back
2013 Supreme(Cal) 173
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
ARUN MISHRA AND JOYMALYA BAGCHI, JJ.
Dipankar Chakraborty – Appellant
Vs.
State of West Bengal – Respondent
W.P. Nos. 19690, 19953, 20113, 20323, 21082, 21446 and 21888 (W) of 2009, 2084, 4455, 4458, 4835, 4885, 5001, 7285, 7287, 9713, 12322, 12323, 12324, 12325, 12326, 12333, 12334, 12335, 12336, 12337, 12355, 12357, 12359, 12419, 12420, 12442, 12449, 12491, 12495, 14112, 15219, 15220, 17018, 18588, 19124, 20446, 20462, 20464, 20469, 20471, 20483, 22791, 23053 and 23684 (W) of 2010, 12903, 12904, 12906, 12909, 12911, 12916, 12979, 13522, 17300, 17302, 17304, 17306, 17308 and 22315 (W) of 2011 and M.A.T. 1281 of 2011
Decided On: 17.04.2013
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Jayanta Mitra, Kishore Dutta, Idrish, Amit Kr. Barman, Saikat Chatterjee, K.K. Maity, Mujibar Rahaman, Musior Rahaman, Mehboob Rahaman, Swapan Banerjee, Lalit Mondal, Sumita Shaw and Sariful Islam Mallick
For Respondents/Defendant: Bimal Chatterjee, Sundarananda Pal, Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, Bikash Kumar Mukherjee, Nilotpal Chatterjee, Taraprasad Haider, Subir Sanyal, Debabrata Chatterjee, Ratul Biswas and Sumita Sen
The court held that the petitioners, being untrained candidates, could not raise any grievance as they had not been able to clear the written test held in 2006.
Headnote:
PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS - APPOINTMENT - QUALIFICATION - TRAINING - AMENDMENT OF RULES - ADVERTISEMENT - SPONSORING OF NAMES BY EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE - VALIDITY - WEST BENGAL PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS RECRUITMENT RULES, 2001 - RULES 6, 9 - WEST BENGAL PRIMARY EDUCATION ACT, 1973 - SECTION 106(1) AND 106(2)(K) READ WITH SECTION 60(1)(K).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, untrained candidates, challenged the appointment of primary school teachers on the ground that the candidates were sponsored by the employment exchange on the basis of fake certificates from unrecognized institutions and that the selection process was discriminatory as it did not consider the petitioners' candidature.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners could not raise any grievance as they had not been able to clear the written test held in 2006. It further held that the State Government was justified in issuing a fresh advertisement in 2009 as per the amendment made in 2009 by giving relaxation of the age limit to the incumbents whose names had been sponsored by the employment exchange for the vacancies of the year 2006.
Issues: 1. Whether the appointment of primary school teachers on the basis of fake certificates from unrecognized institutions was valid. 2. Whether the selection process was discriminatory as it did not consider the petitioners' candidature.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioners, being untrained candidates, could not raise any grievance as they had not been able to clear the written test held in 2006. 2. The court further held that the State Government was justified in issuing a fresh advertisement in 2009 as per the amendment made in 2009 by giving relaxation of the age limit to the incumbents whose names had been sponsored by the employment exchange for the vacancies of the year 2006.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions and appeals filed in connection with the matter.
1. Since the questions arise in the aforesaid cases are almost same, all the matters are being decided by this common order. For this purpose, we allow the applications for condonation of delay filed in connection with the appeals, which are time barred. The matter pertains to the appointment in the post of primary school teachers in various primary schools under the aegis of various District Primary School Councils.
2. The facts as projected in the W.P. 4455 (W) of 2010 are that the petitioners claimed themselves to be eligible for appointment as primary teachers. They were untrained. However, their names were registered with the employment exchange. The respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 are holding PTTI certificates from fake institutes and they got the bereft of their sponsorship from the employment exchange on the strength of fake certificates. It is further averred that the District Primary School Council Jalpaiguri, requisitioned the names from the employment exchange for recruitment of primary school teachers in accordance with the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2001. Pursuant thereto, the respondent District Employment Exchange Officer issued a notice published on 8.2.2006 fixing parameters for sponsoring the names of the candidates. The petitioners were within the ratio of 1:5 for participation in the written examination and the written examination was held on 29.11.2009. It is further averred that the respondents Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 were registered with the employment exchange as general category candidates. The respondent No. 5 was registered with the employment exchange in the year 1995, respondent No. 6 in the year 1996, respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in the year 2001. They were not holding certificates from the recognised institutions. The institutions from which the certificates were obtained were not affiliated by NCTE. The decision in Tulsi Bakshi & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 2008 (4) CHN 789, has been relied upon to contend that such institutions had no right to grant the certificates. As such, the certificates issued in favour of such candidates are liable to be cancelled and no credence can be given to such certificates. Large number of illegally sponsored persons have been favoured with the sponsorship on the basis of their certificates obtained from unrecognized institutions, 150 candidates were sponsored on the strength of PTTI qualification and not on the basis of the seniority in employment exchange, as a matter of fact, their names could not have been sponsored as a trained candidate. Hence, the writ petitions have been preferred. Prayer has been made to cancel the candidature of the persons who were sponsored by the employment exchange not on the basis of the seniority as indicated in the Memo dated 8.2.2006 but on the basis of training certificates issued by the unrecognized institutions.
3. W.P. 19255 (W) of 2009 was filed before the Single Bench on the ground that the petitioners were registered in the employment exchange from 1982 to 1992. In 2006, Birbhum District Primary School Council initiated recruitment process for filling up 691 posts of Assistant Primary Teachers under general category and 296 posts of Assistant Primary Teachers under the exempted category in different primary schools. Names were called from the employment exchange. Names of 21804 untrained candidates and 1423 trained candidates were sponsored in May, 2006. On 6.8.2009 fresh advertisement was issued after amendment of the Rules. Additional 22 marks were awarded to the trained candidates in the Rules called West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2001. In the year 2009 amendment was brought. It was not notified in the fresh advertisement that candidates who were sponsored by the employment exchange pursuant to the advertisement in the year 2006 can also apply pursuant to the advertisement dated 30th August, 2009 and age relaxation would be given to them for the period
