Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J.
Tarannum Rahaman - Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman, West Bengal Regional School Service Commission, Southern Zone & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 21317 (W) of 2004
Decided on : May 13, 2012
WEST BENGAL REGIONAL SCHOOL SERVICE COMMISSION ACT, 1997 - SECTION 3 - Appointment of Urdu Teacher - Panel prepared by the West Bengal Regional School Service Commission, Southern Zone - Vacancy occurred in 1st October, 1999 - No steps were taken by any of the respondent authorities to notify the vacancy for selection - Writ petitioner was placed second in the panel prepared by the West Bengal Regional School Service Commission, Southern Zone - First empanelled candidate was given the appointment but the second candidate/the writ petitioner is concerned, she was not given the appointment on a plea that till life time of the panel there was no vacancy published - Writ petitioner was aware about the vacancy, which occurred in October, 1999 and she moved from pillar to post for her appointment on the basis of her position being the second in the panel - School Service Commission had an obligation to refer and recommend the name of the writ petitioner who stood second in the panel for giving appointment as Urdu Teacher under OBC category in the said school - School Service Commission violated its own Rules and kept the vacancy hidden for reasons best known to them which they are not suppose to do - Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that under same set of facts this Hon'ble Court has come to a conclusion declaring the right of an empanelled candidate who has a legitimate right for being recommended for appointment if vacancies arise and are reported within the period of validity of the panel - School Service Commission did not recommend her name intentionally and deliberately and wrongly published a notification for holding a further selection for the said post and preparation of panel, although prior to holding selection test, the vacancy occurred and the District Inspector reported the same during the lifetime of the panel - School Service Commission should be directed to recommend the writ petitioner and the concerned respondents are also to be directed to issue appointment letter in favour of the writ petitioner who is fighting before this Court since 2004 - The post is lying vacant till today - Writ petition is allowed.
Fact of the Case:
The controversy involved in this writ petition relates to appointment of an Urdu Teacher for which Regional School Service Commission, Southern Region, published a notification for preparation of a panel after holding test and interview. Admitted position is that the vacancies arose on 1st October, 1999. Since 1st October, 1999, no steps was taken by any of the respondent authorities to notify the vacancy for selection.
Finding of the Court:
In my considered opinion, the writ petitioner has nothing more to do. She cannot do any further. She is mere an aspirant who has appeared at the interview and got herself qualified and empanelled. The authority who is obliged to recommend the name of the writ petitioner but did not recommend her name is solely responsible for the happening. There is no delay as such. In such circumstances, the plea of delay is without any basis, without any substance and, therefore, this plea is rejected having no merit at all.
Issues: Whether the School Service Commission was justified in not recommending the name of the writ petitioner for appointment in the vacancy that arose during the validity period of the panel? Whether the School Service Commission was justified in holding a fresh selection process and preparing a new panel after the expiry of the life of the previous panel?
Ratio Decidendi: The empanelled candidate has a legitimate right to be recommended for appointment, if the vacancies arise and are reported within the validity period of the panel. The respondents cannot act arbitrarily and/or discriminate against empanelled candidates in the matter of making recommendations. An empanelled candidate cannot be denied recommendation for appointment in a vacancy that arises and is reported during the validity of the panel without assigning any reason.
Final Decision: Accordingly, I do not have any doubt in my mind to conclude that the writ petitioner having ,been selected and empanelled ought to have been recommended by the School Service Commission for giving appointment, since the vacancy is available on and from 1st October, 1999 and which was informed on 26th October, 2004, during the lifetime of the panel. In that view of the matter, I direct the Regional Service Commission, Southern Zone, to recommend the writ petitioner's name for giving appointment in the C.M.O. Girls' High School within period of two weeks from date.
The controversy involved in this writ petition relates to appointment of an Urdu Teacher for which Regional School Service Commission, Southern Region, published a notification for preparation of a panel after holding test and interview. Admitted position is that the vacancies arose on 1st October, 1999. Since 1st October, 1999, no steps was taken by any of the respondent authorities to notify the vacancy for selection.
2. It appears from proforma for filling up the vacant post of Assistant Teacher: the Headmistress of C.M.O. Girls' High School, 11 Puter Lane, Kolkata - 700 073 filled up the proforma on 17th September, 2003. The District Inspector of Schools (SE), Kolkata, sent a memo bearing Memo No. 1751/M dated 26th October, 2004, to the Chairman. The Chairman, West Bengal Regional School Service Commission, Southern Zone, for filling up vacancy of the said school. In that memo the concerned D.I. requested to sponsor name of the candidates for filling up vacancy in the said school at an early date in accordance with the information mentioned.
3. It appears from the annexure 'P-5' of the writ petition that West Bengal Regional School Service Commission, Southern Zone, issued a notice on 14th December, 2002 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for holding Regional Level Selection Test 2002 for preparing panel of Assistant Teachers in recognized Non-Government aided Secondary/Higher Secondary Schools/Madrasahs in West Bengal as per State Government Rules and procedures against the "vacancies available and likely to occur". Again a note was inserted at the bottom of that notice published in the newspaper that "RLST test for selection and preparation of panel will be made for different subjects for available vacancies and vacancies likely to occur in Schools and Madrasahs with medium in different regions as mentioned below". It is also undisputed that on the basis of such publication, applications were made and a panel of two candidates was prepared on 5th November, 2003, which remained valid till 6th November, 2004. The writ petitioner was placed second in the panel prepared by the West Bengal Regional School Service 'Commission, Southern Zone. So far as the first empanelled candidate was concerned appointment was given but the second candidate/the writ petitioner is concerned, she was not given the appointment on a plea that till life time of the panel there was no vacancy published. Writ petitioner was aware about the vacancy, which occurred in October, 1999 and she moved from pillar to post for her appointment on the basis of her position being the second in the panel.
4. It is now settled law that the empanelled candidate cannot come and move before this Court unless and until the life of the panel is expired. However, before the expiry of the life of the panel, writ petitioner on 1st November, 2004 wrote to the Secretary/Assistant Secretary, West Bengal Regional School Service Commission, Southern Zone, 84 Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata - 700 026, and made a prayer to give employment to her. In her representation she stated that a post of Urdu Teacher of OBC category sanctioned by the concerned D.I. is lying vacant in C.M.O. Girls' High School, 11 Puter Lane, Kolkata - 700 073 and the sanctioned memo of the post had already been sent to his office on 26th October, 2004. The Headmistress of the concerned school met her and she assured that in respect of the said post, the writ petitioner would be appointed within two or three days since she was the only candidate for the said vacant post. But the writ petitioner was not considered. Then the writ petitioner made another representation after the expiry of life of the panel on 26th November, 2004. None of these representations was considered nor responded.
5. The writ petitioner had no other alternative but to come up before this Court by filing a writ petition and it appears that the writ petition was filed on 17th December, 2004 after waiting a period of one an
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
