Back
2000 Supreme(Cal) 541
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.
Durga Charan Ghosh
Versus
State & Ors.
W.P. No. 15557(W) of 1999
Decided On : November 8, 2000
Advocate Appeared:
Amal Kumar Das, S.N. Baid for the petitioner;
D.P. Majumdar, S.A. Khan for the State;
Anil Kr. Janah for the Managing Committee.
The requirement of a three-man panel for the appointment of teachers is not applicable where there is only one eligible candidate.
Headnote:
EDUCATION - APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS - RECRUITMENT RULES - ONE-MAN PANEL - APPROVAL - CONDITIONS - INTERPRETATION OF RULES - LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION - SCHOOL SERVICE COMMISSION - APPOINTMENT AFTER COMING INTO FORCE - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for the post of an Assistant Teacher in a school. He was the only candidate found eligible, but the school authority did not send the panel to the District Inspector of Schools (DIS) for approval, citing the requirement of a three-man panel as per the Recruitment Rules. The petitioner challenged this decision in court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the requirement of a three-man panel was not applicable in this case since the petitioner was the only eligible candidate. It also held that the appointment of teachers by the School Service Commission, which came into effect after the subject interview, was not applicable to this case since the interview was held prior to the Commission's establishment.
Issues: 1. Whether the requirement of a three-man panel was applicable in this case where the petitioner was the only eligible candidate. 2. Whether the appointment of teachers by the School Service Commission was applicable to this case where the subject interview was held prior to the Commission's establishment.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the requirement of a three-man panel was not applicable in this case since the petitioner was the only eligible candidate. It reasoned that the purpose of the three-man panel was to avoid discrimination and provide a wider pool of candidates for consideration. However, in this case, since there was only one eligible candidate, the purpose of the three-man panel was not served. 2. The court held that the appointment of teachers by the School Service Commission was not applicable to this case since the subject interview was held prior to the Commission's establishment. It reasoned that the Commission's jurisdiction was limited to appointments made after its establishment.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the DIS to approve the one-man panel if it was otherwise lawful and made in accordance with the relevant rules.
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.
The present writ petitioner applied for the post of an Assistant Teacher in the concerned school pursuant to the advertisement given in the newspaper. The qualification required by the school authorities was as follows:
"M.A. (Bengali) with Sanskrit at degree level and preferably trained."
2. Interview was held and the writ petitioner was found to be the only candidate possessing the required qualification. The said fact has been admitted by the learned Advocate appearing for Managing Committee before me. Despite the fact that the writ petitioner was the only candidate who was found eligible the panel was not sent to the District Inspector of Schools concerned by the school authority on the plea that there should be at least three-man panel in accordance with the Recruitment Rules.
3. G.R. Bhattacharjee, J. (as His Lordship then was) disposed of the earlier writ petition filed by the present writ petitioner inter alia directing the school authority to send the panel and consequently directed the District Inspector of Schools concerned to approve the panel in accordance with law. The said order of G.R. Bhattachmjee, J. (as His Lordship then was) was appealed from by the school authority. The Division Bench after considering the facts and circumstances directed the District Inspector of Schools concerned to pass appropriate order on the basis of the panel to be sent to him by the school authority. The Division Bench categorically rejected the plea of the school authority that in the absence of all papers and available records it would not be possible for the District Inspector of Schools to approve the panel. The Division Bench in the judgment has observed as follows:
"The learned trial Judge disposed of the writ application directing the Managing Committee to send the panel to the District Inspector of Schools. Mr. Bose, appearing on behalf of the appellants has drawn our attention to paragraph 5(a) of the Recruitment Rules in terms whereof the Selection Committee after holding interview of the candidates shall prepare the panel of three candidates eligible for appointment for such post in order of merit. As in the instant case, according to the Selection Committee except the writ petitioner no other candidate is qualified, the question of preparation of any panel of three candidates did not arise.
The question which has been raised on behalf of the writ petitioner is that until and unless the panel is sent, the District Inspector of Schools would not be able to ascertain as to whether other persons have the requisite qualification or not. The argument does not appeal to us, inasmuch as it is the clear stand of the Managing Committee of the school that no person other than the writ petitioner fulfilled the requirement so far as the qualification for appointment of Assistant Teacher in the said school is concerned. Be that as it may, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, we direct the District Inspector of Schools to examine the relevant papers and issue appropriate order in accordance with law at an early date, and preferably within two weeks from the date of communication of this order, so that provisions of the Recruitment Rules are not violated. He is also requested to give sufficient guidance to the school authorities in the matter."
4. It is contended by and on behalf of the Managing Committee before me that since the Recruitment Rules provide for three-man panel and since the writ petitioner is the only suitable candidate, such attempt to fill up the vacancy is infructuous and the school authority is free to proceed afresh for such appointment. It is also contended by the Managing Committee that since the School Service Commission has been appointed with effect from 1997 any further appointment should be done by the Commission itself and following the rules prescribed therefor.
5. Pursuant to the order of the Division Bench the District Inspector of Schools passed an order
