IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.
Smt. Sujata Dasgupta – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
W.P No. 12192 (W) of 2004
Decided On : July 4, 2008
Qualifications - Appointment of Head Teacher - Interpretation of Rule 17
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought mandamus to approve her appointment as head teacher, claiming she possessed higher qualifications than the prescribed ones for the post.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's possession of a higher B.Ed. qualification did not entitle her to be considered for the post of head teacher, as the law specified lower training qualifications as appropriate.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, possessing a B.Ed. degree, was entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of head teacher, despite not having the prescribed training qualifications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Rule 17, which specified the qualifications for appointment to the post of head teacher, and held that possessing a higher qualification than the ones mentioned in the rule did not make the candidate eligible for the post.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was held not entitled to appointment as head teacher without acquiring the requisite qualifications.
The petitioner in this writ petition dated July 22, 2004 is seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to approve her appointment to the post of head teacher in Biplabi Kshudiram Pally G.S.F.P. School, Kolkata - 700 054.
2. Her case is this. On March 5, 1998 her appointment as assistant teacher in the school was approved by the competent authority. On April 30, 2004 Purnima Lahiri, the head teacher of the school, retired. By a resolution dated April 15, 2004 the Managing Committee of the school had decided that after Purnima's retirement she would work as the teacher-in-charge. Accordingly, with effect from May 1, 2004 she started working as the teacher-in-charge of the school. Though she possessed the qualifications M.A., B.Ed., more than the requisite qualifications, and hence was entitled to be considered for the post of head teacher, the primary school council did not consider her case. Having worked as teacher-in-charge in the school and possessed qualifications higher than the requisite prescribed qualifications, she is entitled to be appointed as head teacher in a primary school.
3. The Council has filed an opposition dated December 23, 2004 contending that having not possessed the prescribed training qualification, she was not eligible for the post, though she possessed a higher B.Ed. qualification.
4. The only question for decision is whether the petitioner, possessing a B.Ed., degree, and not a Junior Basic Training Certificate or a Primary Teacher's Training Certificate, or a degree equivalent to either of them, was and is entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of head teacher.
5. Appointment to the post of head teacher in the primary schools in the state is governed by the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2001, Rule 17 whereof provides as follows : ''The Council shall appoint head teachers in every primary school within the jurisdiction of the Council, from a panel of senior-most primary teachers possessing requisite qualifications as laid down in sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 and who have obtained a Junior Basic Training Certificate or Primary Teacher's Training Certificate or equivalent."
6. On the strength of an unreported Single Bench decision of this Court dated March 18, 2002 in W.P. No. 2698(W) of 2002 (Smt. Kanchan Dhar v. State of West Bengal & Ors.), counsel for the petitioner submits that B.Ed. qualification being a qualification higher than the training qualifications mentioned in Rule 17, there is no reason to say that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of head teacher. I am unable to agree with him. According to Rule 17 the candidate must possess either anyone of the specifically mentioned qualifications or any other qualification equivalent to the ones specifically mentioned in the rule, and not any higher or lower qualification.
7. The higher B.Ed. degree qualification that the petitioner possesses may be relevant for any other purpose, but not for the purpose of appointment to the post of head teacher in a primary school for which the makers of the law in their wisdom decided that the lower training qualification mentioned in Rule 17 would be the appropriate qualification. If the petitioner's contention is entertained, that, in my opinion, will amount to re-writing the provisions of Rule 17 for inserting therein the provision that even a qualification higher than the ones mentioned in the rule will be sufficient to make the candidate concerned eligible for the post of head teacher.
8. Counsel for the council has rightly referred me to the Apex Court decision in P.M. Latha & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2003 (3) SCC 541. There P.M. Latha & Ors., some unsuccessful candidates, possessing Teacher's Training Certificate, a qualification prescribed for the posts of lower primary and upper primary teachers in Government Schools in the State of Kerala, contended that the candidates who possessed the B
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.