Seniority and qualifications are crucial factors in determining promotion to the post of Head Teacher, and the appointment of a junior teacher in violation of these factors is discriminatory and unlawful.

The short facts of the case are as follows:-

1. The petitioner submits that he has completed the B.A examination in the year 1987 from the Kolkata University. Thereafter he also completed the basic training as a Primary Teacher trainee, from the recognized training Institute in the year 1990 as an Assistant Primary Teacher. In the year 2011 the petitioner name is on the authorized list as serial No.13 for recruitment as Head Teacher, thereafter the petitioner’s name was listed in the subsequent years i.e 2012, 2013 and 2014 in the panel list for the post of Head Teacher under the Kolkata Primary School Council. The respondent had published a formal list for the year 2014 this name was No.8 of the serial number.

2. The petitioner further added that the respondent called the empanelled candidates for counselling on 18.9.2014 for the post of Head Teacher in different vacancies in the respective Primary Schools. The Kolkata Primary Schools Council had accommodated the empanelled candidates in different Urdu Medium Primary Schools. The petitioner’s and other empanelled candidates would not be accommodated due to lack of vacancies. Actually as per the panel published in the 1st week of September 2014, the petitioner’s name was against serial No.1 for Urdu Medium Schools. Under these circumstances on 31.1.2015, the Head Teacher’s post at Dr. A.M.O. Ghani Memorial School became vacant. The petitioner has appointed for the said post under the concerned Chairman Kolkata Primary School Council, the same was not considered in his favour.

3. The petitioner further submits that one Md. Nasim was appointed as an Assistant Teacher at Dr. A.M.O. Ghani Memorial Schools on 5.1.1999 and subsequently became a teacher in-charge of the said school. The said Md. Nasim was an untrained candidate at the time of initial appointment, therefore the said Md. Nasim was not considered in the panel as Head Teacher after 2014. The said Md. Nasim had completed the basis primary course in the year 2011, therefore his name was included in the year 2014 by the panel that is below the rank of the petitioner. The panel was prepared in accordance with this Court order dated 11.3.2013. The said Md. Nasim/5th respondent herein moved a writ petition for inclusion in the panel for the post of Head teacher Urdu Calcutta Primary School Council. This Court was pleased to direct the Calcutta Primary School Council to prepare the panel of the private respondent in accordance with seniority and to select the Head Teacher in accordance with the law, laid down procedure. The said Md. Nasim who was a junior teacher when compared to the petitioner herein. By superseding the petitioner’s position, the 5th respondent herein has been appointed as Head teacher at Dr. A.M.O. Gani Memorial Primary School on 10. 12.2015.

4. The petitioner further submits that the appointment of the 5th respondent by way of superseding the petitioner is violating Rules 17, 18 and 19 of the Primary Teacher Recruitment Rules 2001. Actually the petitioner’s name was given in serial no.1 of the empanelled list. The respondent had prepared the empanelled list which is against this Court order passed in W.P. No. 33750 (W) of 2014 and also against the Teachers Recruitment Rules. As such the appointment of the 5th respondent herein as a Teacher is in violation of natural justice. The petitioner also made an application under the Right to Information Act and sought the panel of the Head Teacher list, the same was not furnished, hence, an appeal has been filed before the West Bengal Commissioner who deals with appeals under the Right to the Information Act. The respondent shall supersede the petitioner and appointed the 5th respondent herein as a Head Teacher on 14.12.2005 which is not valid under the Teachers Recruitment Rules. The petitioner had submitted an objection letter on 7.1.2016 and approved the appointment of the 5th respondent herein as Head Teacher, the same was not considered. Hence, the