The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a harmonious construction of the statutory provisions and rules under the 1999 Act and the 2001 Rules, emphasizing the absence of contradiction between the two laws and the peaceful coexistence of both laws.

Rakesh Tiwari, J.

1. The backdrop of reference has already been elucidated by my Ld. brothers, Talukdar and Dara Sheko, JJ. in their separate Judgments. I would therefore, pen down my own thoughts on the point as it does pass my mind that the Reference before us in this Special Bench turns on a pure interpretation of the statutory provisions and rules holding the field on the subject issue.

2. On the one hand, is Section 2 (11) of the West Bengal Regulation of Recruitment in State Government Establishments of Public undertakings, Statutory Bodies, Government Companies and Authorities Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 1999 Act) and, on the other, is the Recruitment Rules 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 2001 Rules).

3. The appellant lays claim to the post of primary school teacher on the foundation that West Bengal Primary Council (hereinafter referred to as Council as defined in Rule 2(e) of the Rules 2001) is beyond the ambit of the provisions of 1999 Act, as such State Government or its instrumentality the ‘council’ has no power, authority, or jurisdiction to exclude he being, an ex-census worker, from selection to the post under the “Exempted Category” as defined in Section 2(5) of the 1999 Act in relation to persons who may fall within the zone of consideration of such “Exempted Category”. The definition reads:-

Section 2(5):- “exempted category” means the category of persons seeking any job, declared by the State Government to be exempted category under Section 3.

4. This contention of appellant is opposed by the State Counsel on the ground of ineligibility i.e. of not conforming to conditions laid down in notification dated 21st August 2002 issued by the Government under the 1999 Act clarifying the nomenclature of “Ex-census Employees” thus:-

“Clause 4 Ex-Census Employees:-

Ex-Census employees who worked in connection with 1981 Census Operation and who had put in at least six months’ continuous service under the Director of Census Operations, West Bengal.

Ex-Census Enumerators/Supervisors of 1981 Census Operations and 1991 Census Operations holding authentic “Experience Certificate” issued by the Directorate of Census Operations, West Bengal or any other competent authority duly authorized by the said Directorate.

Persons holding ‘Discharge Certificate’ only shall not be considered for inclusion in the “Exempted Categories” since certificates granted by certain officials in some cases do not conform to the census frame-work communicated by the Directorate of Census Operations, West Bengal.

Clause 5.

Election Job workers/Enumerators:-

Election job workers and Enumerators as were engaged in the job during the revision/preparation of electoral rolls by the Home (C& E) Department between 1979 and 1st June, 2000 and who had put in a total of at least 240 days’(two hundred forty days) work during the said period.

This supersedes all earlier Circulars and Executive Orders issued from time to time, by the Government of West Bengal in the Labour Department relating to employment of persons belong to the Exempted Categories”.

5. It stands to reason that either of the above noted provisions were not intended to contradict each other. Starting with the subsequent notification of the 2001 Rules, the same were intended to deal with a specific category of recruitments, viz. that of Primary School Teachers. A careful reading of the 2001 Rules does not demonstrate any violence either intended or, unintended, to be caused to the accepted canons of reservation as laid down in the statute, viz. the 1999 Act.

6. Simply put, even in law, as a stream cannot rise above its source, the 2001 Rules merely seek to fine tune the several aspects of reservation in relation to different categories, extent of quotas, definitions of eligible categories and the like. Upon a conjoint consideration of the 1999 Act and the 2001 Rules it does not appear that the two could function in mutually exclusive jurisdictional fields.

7. Therefore, as correctly appre