SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3042

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
MANASHI PAUL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. – Respondent
WPA 29050 / 2024



Form No. J (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION)

APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Biswajit Basu.

W.P.A. 29050 of 2024 MANASHI PAUL -Vs-

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

For the petitioners : Mr. Ashis Kumar Chowdhury, Mr. Biswarup Biswas, Mr. Babhru Bahan Bera, Mr. Avisek Chatterjee.

For the State : Mr.Supriyo Chattopadhyay(Ld.AGP), Ms. Sayantanee Bhattacharjee.

For the WBCSSC. : Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra, Ms. Supriya Dubey Heard on : 01.07.2025 Judgment on : 09.07.2025 Biswajit Basu, J.:

1. The issue falls for consideration in the instant writ petition is whether the petitioner was overage as on the date of making online application to participate in the 1st State Level Selection Test, 2016(‘1st SLST, 2016’ in short)

for recruitment of Assistant Teachers, in Upper Primary Level of Schools.

2. The undisputed facts necessary to address the said issue are thus; the petitioner had applied to take the Teacher Eligibility Test (‘TET’ in short) 2013 to participate in the 13thRegional Level Selection Test(‘13th RLST’ in short) but neither the TET 2013 nor the 13th RLST was held, however, the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (the ‘Commission’ in short), by an Advertisement bearing No. 01/TET/2015 dated June 10, 2015 had notified TET 2015, the petitioner had participated in the said Test and was declared qualified.

3. The School Education Department (Secondary Branch), Government of West Bengal, thereafter, in exercise of the power conferred to it by Section 17 of the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997(hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act of 1997’ in short) vide notification bearing No. 485-SE(S)/1S- 26/2010(Part-I) dated June 03, 2015, had notified West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers in Upper Primary Level) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Rules of 2015’ in short) thereby prescribing the manner and scope of selection of persons for recruitment of Assistant Teachers in Upper Primary Level of Schools and Rule 4 thereof had prescribed the minimum and maximum age limit to participate in such selection process, however, the second proviso to the said Rule had prescribed age relaxation, the petitioner was within the said relaxed age limit but no recruitment drive was taken in terms of the said Rules of 2015.

4. The School Education Department (Secondary Branch) Government of West Bengal, thereafter, vide notification No. 1104-SE/S/1S-26/2010 (Part-III) dated September 20, 2016 and in supersession of the said Rules of 2015, had notified the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers in Upper Primary Level) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Rules of 2016’ in short). The Commission, following the said Rules of 2016 had conducted 1st SLST, 2016. The petitioner had participated in the said selection test but was not called for the verification of her testimonials on the ground that she is overage.

5. The petitioner and some other similarly placed candidates, aggrieved by the said refusal, had filed a writ petition being WP 23603(W) of 2018. In the said matter, an interim order was passed to the effect that in the event any interview is held and the candidates come within the zone of consideration on the basis of the marks obtained in TET 2015 and other qualifications, the Commission shall allow them to participate in the ensuing personality test but such participation in the interview shall not create any equity in favour of the said candidates towards appointment.

6. In compliance with the said direction, the petitioners of the said writ petition were called for verification of their testimonials and in the said process, only the petitioner came out to be eligible, consequently, she was empanelled. The petitioner thereafter on November 20, 2024 was called for counselling but the Commission did not issue any recommendation letter, instead, o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top