Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Amrita Sinha, J.
Dibya Jyoti Paul - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.A. No. 3780 of 2015, 3781 of 2015
Decided On : 09-04-2021
In-Service Candidates - West Bengal School Service Commission - Rule 7 of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of persons for Appointment to the post of Teachers) Rules, 2007 - The judgment discusses the eligibility of the petitioners to be treated as in-service candidates and the validity of the cancellation of their recommendation. It interprets the relevant rules and government orders to determine the entitlement of the petitioners to be considered as in-service candidates and the applicability of the marks for teaching experience. The court emphasizes the need for approval of engagement by the Competent Authority as a pre-condition for claiming the benefit for in-service candidates and sets aside the impugned orders, directing the Commission to verify the documents and take a decision within eight weeks.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, contractual teachers in West Bengal, were initially recommended for appointment as Assistant Teachers but their recommendation was later cancelled by the West Bengal Regional School Service Commission. The petitioners challenged the cancellation, arguing that they were eligible to be treated as in-service candidates and entitled to marks for their teaching experience.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were eligible to be treated as in-service candidates and entitled to marks for their teaching experience. It held that the Commission hastily applied the wrong test and relied upon a clarificatory memo that was not applicable to the petitioners' case. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the Commission to verify the documents and make a decision within eight weeks.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to be treated as in-service candidates and receive marks for their teaching experience, and whether the cancellation of their recommendation was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for approval of engagement by the Competent Authority as a pre-condition for claiming the benefit for in-service candidates. It held that the Commission misinterpreted and wrongly applied the clarificatory memo, and that the petitioners were entitled to be treated as in-service candidates if their service was approved by the Competent Authority.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ applications, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the Commission to verify the documents and make a decision within eight weeks. It restrained the respondent authorities from filling up the posts in question until a decision was communicated to the petitioners.
JUDGMENT
Amrita Sinha, J. - The issues in both the writ petitions being identical, they are taken up for consideration analogously and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Chairman, West Bengal Regional School Service Commission, Northern Region, Malda whereby it was ordered that the counselling in temporary in-service teacher category, and the option exercised by them during such counselling, be treated as cancelled. Ignoring their experience under in-service category they are not entitled to be counselled and recommended for any post until their rank (CMP), without the above benefit, turns up in the respective category (OBC-B) in Work Education (Pass) subject, within the validity period of the panel.
3. Dibya Jyoti Paul was a contractual teacher in Debinagar K.C.R. Vidyapith (HS) from 26th June, 2007 to 30th July, 2014. Rajib Kumar Saha was a contractual teacher in the Vocational Training Centre of Raiganj Mohanbati High School (HS) from 7th August, 2009 to 30th July, 2014.
4. They appeared in the 12th Regional Level Selection Test for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in recognized non-government aided Junior High Schools/High Schools/Higher Secondary Schools in West Bengal. They belong to the OBC-B category. They were directed to appear in the personality test whereat they furnished their experience certificate before the Personality Test Board.
5. The petitioners were treated as in-service candidates and were empanelled in the combined merit list to appear for counselling. The petitioners duly appeared in the counselling and exercised their option. They were selected as Assistant Teacher in a High School but the recommendation letter was not issued in their favour. The petitioners were constrained to approach the High Court by filing writ petitions being WP 13815 (W) of 2014 and WP 16395 (W) of 2014 respectively. The said writ petitions were disposed of by the Court whereby direction was passed to recommend the name of the petitioners for appointment in the school, according to the declaration submitted by them in course of counselling within a specified period.
6. In compliance of the order passed by the Court recommendation letter was issued in their favour for appointment in a High School. The Headmaster and the Secretary of the school issued formal letter of appointment in favour of the petitioners and on the basis of the same the petitioners joined the school. The respective Headmasters thereafter sought for approval of the appointment of the petitioners. It is submitted that, thereafter, the impugned communication was received by the petitioners intimating them about the cancellation of their option exercised during counselling, and further intimating them that they were not entitled to be recommended for any post by treating them as in-service candidates.
7. The petitioners are aggrieved by the same.
8. According to the petitioners the respondent authority applied the wrong test to determine whether they will be entitled to get the benefit of being treated as in-service candidates or not.
9. In the application form and the information brief for the candidates appearing in the 12th Regional Level Selection Test, 2011, the marks distribution pattern is mentioned. Note 1 therein mentions that for experience in teaching 0.5 marks would be awarded for each complete year of continuous teaching experience up to maximum ceiling limit of 5 marks i.e. maximum 10 years (to be calculated on the date of application) of continuous teaching experience for the Assistant Teacher in Non-Government Aided Schools/Para Teacher/Contractual Teacher/Part Time Teacher/ Samprasarak/ Samprasarika/ Mukhya Samprasarak/ Mukhya Samprasarika in MSK or Sikhya Mitra in Rabindra Mukta Vidyalaya or Special Educator, if his/her service is continuous in nature.
10. The marks on account of experience have not been awarded to the petitioners as, according to the respondents, the petiti
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
