IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
GAURANG KANTH, J.
Shuvendu Haldar and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of West Bengal and Others – Respondents
WPA No. 3759 of 2023, CAN No. 1 of 2024
Decided On : 19-05-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of factual background and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. conflicting contentions regarding candidate categorization and recruitment policy. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. analysis of administrative misclassification and non-culpability of candidates. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. administrative error cannot defeat legitimate claims through panel exhaustion. (Para 23) |
| 5. direction for reinstatement of candidates with service benefits. (Para 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
GAURANG KANTH, J.
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondent authorities to set aside, cancel, rescind and/or withdraw the Order bearing No. 1191(5) dated 21.10.2022 passed by the Chairman, Murshidabad District Primary School Council, and further directing reinstatement of the Petitioners to the post of Assistant Teacher with continuity of service along with all consequential service benefits including payment of arrears of salary..
2. The facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition are briefly set out hereinbelow.
3. The Respondent authorities published an advertisement dated 26.09.2016 inviting applications for the recruitment of Assistant Teachers in primary schools under the State of West Bengal. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the Petitioners applied for the said posts in Murshidabad District under Respondent No. 5, the Murshidabad District Primary School Council, in the category of untrained teachers. The Petitioners appeared in the interviews conducted by the Respondent authorities and, upon successful selection, were appointed as Primary Teachers under the Murshidabad District Primary School Council.
4. Upon receipt of their respective appointment letters issued by Respondent No. 5, the Petitioners joined their respective schools and diligently discharged the duties assigned to them. However, on 14.02.2017, Respondent No. 6 issued a letter abruptly cancelling their appointments. The ground assigned for such cancellation was that the Petitioners had been appointed on the basis of their Special B.Ed. qualification; however, since Special B.Ed. was not recognised as a valid training qualification under the applicable rules at the relevant point of time, the Petitioners were held to be bereft of the requisite training qualification, and consequently, their appointments were cancelled.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid cancellation, the Petitioners preferred Writ Petition No. WPA 13613 of 2017 before this Court. Vide Order dated 12.09.2022, this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition by granting liberty to the Petitioners to approach Respondent No. 5 with a representation, and further directed Respondent No. 6 to decide the said representation after affording the Petitioners a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
6. In compliance with the said directions, the Petitioners submitted a representation to Respondent No. 5 on 20.09.2022. Respondent No. 6, after affording personal hearings to the Petitioners, passed an Order dated 21.10.2022, noting that the West Bengal Board of Primary Education is the competent authority for preparing and approving the District-wise Panel for recruitment of Primary School Teachers under all District Primary School Councils in West Bengal. Accordingly, the representations of the Petitioners were forwarded to the West Bengal Board of Primary Education for its perusal and consideration in accordance with the applicable rules.
7. Being aggrieved by the said Order dated 21.10.2022, the Petitioners have preferred the present Writ Petition.
Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioners
8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners never applied as trained candidates in the selection process. It was the Respondent authorities who, of their own accord, treated the Petitioners' Special B.Ed. qualification as a sufficient training qualification and appointed them after following the
The court affirmed that eligibility criteria for reserved positions must be strictly adhered to, ruling against the appointment of an ineligible candidate.
Candidates must fulfill requisite qualifications at the time of appointment; failure to do so renders the appointment void ab initio.
Unfilled reserved vacancies can be filled by general candidates post-amendment to the Act, shifting the burden of proof to the appointing authority.
Candidates on a merit list do not have an indefeasible right to appointment if they fail to meet the prescribed cut-off marks, emphasizing the need for fair recruitment processes.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.