Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Soumitra Pal & Mir Dara Sheko, JJ.
Birbhum District Primary School Council and Anr. – Applicants
Versus
Golam Murtoza and Ors. – Respondent
M.A.T. No. 768 of 2016 With CAN 4949 of 2016
Decided On : 22-07-2016
PRIMARY TEACHERS RECRUITMENT - 2006 SELECTION PROCESS - REVISITING THE PANEL - RECOGNITION OF TRAINING INSTITUTES - NCTE ACT, 1993 - Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing all District Primary School Councils in the State of West Bengal, who had undertaken the 2006 selection process, for recruitment of primary teachers to revisit the panel out of which appointments of primary teachers were made.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, Birbhum District Primary School Council, challenged the judgment and order dated 12th April, 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. 26528 (W) of 2015 (Golam Murtoza and others v. The State of West Bengal and others) whereby the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions held that all District Primary School Councils in the State of West Bengal undertaking the 2006 selection process will revisit the panel out of which appointments of primary teachers have been granted in the 2006 selection process.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the learned Single Judge erred in passing the judgment under appeal. Hence, the judgment and order dated 12th April, 2016 are set aside and quashed.
Issues: 1. Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing all District Primary School Councils in the State of West Bengal, who had undertaken the 2006 selection process, for recruitment of primary teachers to revisit the panel out of which appointments of primary teachers were made? 2. Whether the appointments made in mid February, 2010 were illegal and irregular?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that appointments were made in mid February, 2010 when the judgment in Tulsi Baksi (supra), which had considered the provisions of the 1993 Act, in this regard was the only authority on law relating to the appointment of primary teachers. 2. The judgments in Hiranmoy Bhowmik (supra) or in Sampa Pradhan (supra) were subsequent to the appointments. Therefore, the judgment in Tulsi Baksi (supra) was covering the field. 3. Keeping the judgment of Tulsi Baksi (supra) in mind appointments were made. 4. During argument it was not even remotely contended on behalf of the respondents that the appointments made were vitiated by irregularities in the selection process or there was manipulation in preparing the panel. 5. The principles of law in Hitendra Singh (supra) relied on behalf of the respondents are not applicable to the facts of this case as therein an enquiry committee had gone into the allegation of illegalities and irregularities in the appointment process of senior and junior research assistants which was found to be correct. 6. Since appointments were made treating all candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange as untrained candidates when the law laid down in Tulsi Baksi (supra) was governing the legal arena, appointments cannot now be reworked by revisiting the panel.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the judgment and order dated 12th April, 2016 were set aside and quashed.
Soumitra Pal, J.
This appeal has been preferred by the Birbhum District Primary School Council against the judgment and order dated 12th April, 2016 passed in W.P. 26528 (W) of 2015 (Golam Murtoza and others v. The State of West Bengal and others) whereby the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions held, inter alia, as under:-
"The issue, therefore, falling for consideration in these writ petitions have to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the petitioners.
All District Primary School Councils in the State of West Bengal undertaking the 2006 selection process will revisit the panel out of which appointments of primary teachers have been granted in the 2006 selection process. Such District Primary School Councils will award appropriate marks in terms of Rule 9(2)(d) of the Recruitment Rules, 2001 to every candidate possessing requite training certificate for the years prior to 2005. The District Primary School Councils will prepare a fresh panel on such basis. District Primary School Council thereafter will proceed to give appointments to the persons in the panel in accordance with merit for the 2006 vacancies.
It is expected that the District Primary School Councils complete the entire exercise within a period of six weeks from the date of the communication of this order. The District Primary School Councils will undertake the exercise for all the candidates participating in the selection process of 2006. It will not limit the exercise to the petitioners only. On completion of such exercise the District Primary School Council will proceed to appoint the candidates in accordance with merit. The authorities will grant approval to such appointments in accordance with law.
These 284 writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs."
2. The issue which requires to be considered is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing all District Primary School Councils in the State of West Bengal, who had undertaken the 2006 selection process, for recruitment of primary teachers to revisit the panel out of which appointments of primary teachers were made. It is evident while disposing of the writ petition, being W.P. 26528 (W) of 2015, 284 writ petitions on similar issue were disposed of. Though facts, in general, and the question of law in all the writ petitions were similar, for the sake of brevity and clarity, the prayers in W.P. No. 26528 (W) of 2015 are referred to. The relevant prayers in the said writ petition were as under:-
"(a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and/or their men and agents to treat the certificates of the petitioners obtained on Primary Teachers’ Training during the period 2004-05 valid and to allot 22 marks to each of them in the light of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and to provide all of them employment in Primary School as teachers immediately;
(b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and/or their men and agents to set aside the panel, if any, prepared by the respondents;"
3. Mr. L. K. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants relying on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal submitted that the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (‘1993 Act’ for short) governs the teacher education system in the country. The 1993 Act does not contain any provision for relaxation of any condition regarding grant of affiliation to an institution by the regional body of the National Council for Teacher Education (for short "NCTE"). Under section 14 of the 1993 Act every institution to impart teacher education has to apply for recognition to the regional body. Parameters therein, which are not mere formalities, have to be fulfilled. Recognition granted or refused to an institution by NCTE shall be notified in the Official Gazette. Section 15 speaks of recognized institutions to impart training and course is determined by Regulations. Section 16 stipu
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
