Sk. Jayed Hossain - SARTHAC

Sk. Jayed Hossain Advocate,

High Court, Calcutta Bar Association Room No.15

Residence: Flat —E, 2nd Floor, Mrittika Apartment, P.O. Parnashree, Jinjira Bazar, Kolkata — 700060. Chamber. 37/4A/1B, Rabitirtha Sarani, Khidderpur, Kolkata-700023

MOB No: 9831088783/9804631940 •

Ref: Date : 04.03.2016

To 1. The Learned Government Pleader,

High Court, Calcutta.

2. The Commissioner of School Education, Government of West Bengal, Bikash Bhavan, Salt Lake City, Kolkata — 700091.

3. The District Primary School Council, Bankura, Vidya Bhaban, Machantala, Dist.- Bankura, Pin- 722101.

4. The Chairman, District Primary School Council, Bankura, Vidya Bhaban, Machantala, Dist.- Bankura, Pin- 722101.

Re: W.P. No. SF3 5 ) of 2016

gad-ha-rah Mart ---Petitioner

-Versus- The State of West Bengal & Ors

Sir, ----Respondents

Enclosed please find herewith the copy of the writ petition along with all annexures

which has been assigned before His Lordship the Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak and

matter will apr on 403.2016 or so soon thereafter as "Motion" before the said Hon'ble tze__ Court. Thereafteryou are hereby requested to appear at the time of hearing.

This is for your information on necessary action.

Thanking you,

Enclo : As above.

Yours faiti-tfuibi, —2-1)

4Ct_ Advocate

For the petitioner

DISTRICT: BANKURA

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

W. P. No. 5T3s (W) of 2016

Subject matter relating to

Education:

Group - (II), Head - (h) of the

Classification List

Cause Title:

Radharani Mandal

Petitioner

-VERSUS-

The State of West Bengal &

Ors.

Respondents

Advocate-on-Record:

Sic. Jayed Hossain, Advocate, Bar Association Room no, 15, High Court, Calcutta. Mob: 9831088783/9804631940

DISTRICT: BANKURA



APPELLATE SIDE

W. P. No. 573g (W) of 2016

In the matter of: An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

And In the matter of : Radharani Mandal

......... Petitioner

-VERSUS- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Respondents

INDEX

Sl.No. Particulars of documents Annexure Page No.

1. Writ Petition 1 to 23

2. Photocopies of the admit card and mark-sheets and Primary Teacher's Training certificates.

P/1 2t 48 2-A2

3. Photocopy of the admit card issued by the District Primary School Council, Bankura in favour of the petitioner.

P/2 2F

4 Photocopy of the judgment and order dated 12th April, 2011.

P/3 Tirit "to 4,,

5 Photocopy of the judgment and order dated 19th August, 2015.

P/4 50 .4-, tPto

6 Photocopy of the order dated 3rd September, 2015.

P/5 _ 39

LIST OF DATES

Date Particulars

1991 : The petitioner passed Madhyamik Examination.

2005 : The petitioner passed Primary Teachers Training

Examination.

2006 : Requisition was send from the respondent no. 4

to the office of the Employment Exchange for

sending list of candidates.

6.12.2009

The Written test was held.

08.02.2010

11.02.2010

1204 ;20// 61\10.200) ,.

26.08.2015

Challenging the selection process clubbing two

different selection process together, one

Nilmadav Das and ors. filed a writ petition being

W.P. No. 2044 (W) of 2010. The said writ petition

was dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge.

Challenging the order of dismissal dated

08.02.2010 an appeal being MAT No. 169 of

2010 along with an application for stay being

CAN No. 950 of 2010 was filed. The Hon'ble

Division Bench passed an interim order granting

liberty to the authorities to process with the

selection.

1428 The appeal being MAT No. kft of 2010 was finally disposed of.

Challenging the judgment and order dated

03.05.2010, a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.

24234 of 2010 was filed. The same has been

disposed of without interfering with the

judgment and order of the Hon'ble Division

Bench.

POINTS OF LAW

1. As to whether the respondents are under obligation to

recast the panel of primary teacher prepared in the year

2010 after awarding marks for training qualification of the

petitioner or not?

2. As to whether the petitioner is entitled for getting marks

for her training qualification or not?

3. As to whether the impugned action and/or inaction on the

part of the respondents are illegal, arbitrary, whimsical as

well as prejudicial to the rights of the petitioner or not?

DISTRICT: BANKURA



APPELLATE SIDE

W.P. No. (W) of 2015;

In the matter of:

An application under Article 226

of the Constitution of India.

-And-

In the matter of:

A writ in the nature of

Mandamus and/or Certiorari

and/or Prohibition and/or any

other appropriate writ or writs,

order or orders, direction or

directions;

-And-

In the matter of:

The West Bengal Primary

Education Act, 1973 and Rules

framed thereunder;

2

-And-

In the matter of:

Impugned action and/or

inactions on the part of the

District Primary School Council,

Bankura in not recasting the

panel of primary teacher after

awarding marks to the petitioner

for her training qualification and

send the same to the

Commissioner of School

Education for his approval;

-And-

In the matter of:

Radharani Mandal,

c/o - Bhimsen Mandal, residing

at Vill + Post Office - Supur,

District - Bankura, Pin -

Petitioner.

3

-Versus-

1. The State of West Bengal,

Service through the Secretary,

Department of School Education,

having its office at Bikash

Bhawan, Salt Lake City, Kolkata

— 700 091.

2. The Commissioner of

School Education, Government of

West Bengal, having its office at

Bikash Bhawan, Salt Lake City,

Kolkata- 700091.

3. The District Inspector of

Schools (PE), Bankura, having its

office at Vidya Bhaban,

Machantala, District - Bankura,

Pin - 722101

4

4. The District Primary School

Council, Bankura, having its



Pin - 722101

5. The Selection Committee,


Bankura, through the Chairman,



Pin - 722101

6. The Chairman, District

Primary School Council,

Bankura, having its office at

Vidya Bhaban, Machantala,

District - Bankura, Pin - 722101

Respondents

5

To

The Hon'ble Mrs. Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice and Her

Companion Justices of the said Hon'ble Court.

The humble petition of the

petitioner abovenamed

Most Respectfully Sheweth:

1. Your petitioner states that your petitioner is a citizen of India

and permanent inhabitant of address as given in the cause title

hereinabove.

2. Your petitioner states that the petitioner passed Madhyamik

Examination and also Primary Teachers Training examination.

Photocopies of the admit card and mark-sheets and Primary

Teacher's Training certificates are annexed hereto and collectively

marked as Annexure — P/ 1.

3. Your petitioner states that from the office of the respondent•

No.4 a requisition was sent to the different offices of employment

exchange within the District of Bankura for sending list of eligible

candidates for the post of primary teacher.

6

4. Your petitioner states that as the petitioners name was

sponsored for the post of primary teacher, thus the respondent

No.6 intimated that the petitioner's name was sponsored from the

employment exchange in the year 2006 for recruitment to the post

of assistant teacher in primary schools under the respondent No.4.

Accordingly, petitioner was asked to submit prescribed form after

properly filling up the same.

5. Your petitioner states that as on the basis of marks, the

petitioner was within the zone of consideration for appearing in the

written test for the said post of primary teacher, thus the Secretary

of the District Primary School Council issued admit card intimating

the petitioner that written test would be held on 6.12.2009 at 12

pm. The petitioner duly appeared the written test on the above date

and time

Photocopy of the said admit card is annexed hereto and

marked as Annexure - P/2.

6. Your petitioner states that though the petitioner was

sponsored in the year 2006 and written test was held on

6.12.2009. However, at no point of time in no manner, neither the

7

respondent authorities issued any notification and/or notice

declaring the exact vacancy for the post of primary teacher under

different category. Not the • petitioner could learn the number of

vacancies short to be filled up the selection process.

7. Your petitioner states that though the petitioner was Junior

in registration in the office of the concerned employment exchange.

However, considering the petitioner as a trained candidate the

petitioner was sponsored granting privilege over non-trained

candidate as postulated under sub-Rule 6 of Rule 6.

8. Your petitioner states that though no panel was published,

however in the official website of the respondent No.4 only

disclosed the marks of the successful candidates in the said

selection process and the candidates who are not selected their

particulars were not available in the website.

9. Your petitioner states that the petitioner's particulars were

not available in the website as the petitioner was not allegedly

found to be a selected candidate as no marks for her training

qualification was awarded.

8

10. Your petitioner states that the petitioner came to learn that as

no mark was awarded for training qualification, thus a writ petition

being W.P. No. 8022 (W) of 2010 was filed by the petitioner herein

and the said writ petition was disposed in the light of the Judgment

and/or Order dated 29.06.2010 passed in W. P. No. 2580(w) of

2010 (Tumpa Roy Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors.).

It is pertinent to point out herein that W. P. No. 2580 (w) of

2010 was disposed Of directing the State of West Bengal to frame a

scheme for the petitioner.

The petitioner craves leave to produce the copy of the

Judgment and/or Order dated 29.06.2010 at the time of hearing, if

called for.

11. That as the state of West Bengal did not prefer any appeal

against the Judgment and Order dated 29.06.2010, thus the

petitioner was hopefully awaiting for the policy decision/scheme to

be adopted/brought for the trained candidates but for a long period

no such scheme was disclosed.

12. Your petitioner states that challenging the judgment and

order dated 08.07.2010 Passed in W.P. No. 9307 (W) of 2010 and

9

other similar matters appeal being M.A.T. No.1428 of 2011 was

preferred and the said appeal and other similar appeals were finally

disposed of by the judgment and order dated 12th April, 2011

passed by The Hon'ble Justice Amit Talukder (as His Lordship then

was) and The Hon'ble Provat Kumar Dey (As His Lordship then was)

holding thereby that the appellants would now stand qualified for

the post of primary teachers and the deficit marks obviously, would

be required to be given by the authority concerned in the light of

the discussion therein.

Photocopy of the judgment and order dated 12th April, 2011 is

annexed hereto and marked as Annexure - P/3.

13. Your petitioner states that challenging the judgment and

order dated 12th April, 2011 Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16781

of 2011 was filed.

14. Your petitioner states that the said Special Leave Petition

(Civil) No. 16781 of 2011 and other similar matters have been

disposed of by solemn judgment and order dated 19.08.2015

without interfering into the judgment and order passed by the

Hon'ble Division Bench on 12.04.2011.

10

Photocopy of the judgment and order dated 19th August, 2015

is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure - P/4.

15. Your petitioner states that though by the judgment and order

dated 29.06.2010 The Learned Single judge directed the State

Respondents to frame a policy decision for the trained candidates.

However, no such policy was at all framed

16. Your petitioner states that even after the judgment and order

dated 12th April, 2011 no steps were taken for awarding marks for

the training qualification.

17. Your petitioner states that after disposal of the aforesaid

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16781 of 2011 a contempt matter

being W.P.C.R.C. No.286 (w) of 2015 was taken by The Hon'ble

Justice Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari wherein the Chairman of Malda

District Primary School Council and the Commissioner of School

Education given an undertaking before this Hon'ble Court that they

will recast the panel after adding marks of training certificate and

to send to it the Commissioner of School Education and

the Commissioner of School Education will grant approval

immediately.

11

Photocopy of the order dated 3rd September, 2015 is annexed

hereto and marked as Annexure - P/5.

18. That though the chairman of Malda Distict Primary School

Council and the Commissioner of school Education given

undertaking to recast the panel after awarding the marks for

training but for the District of Bankura, no policy has yet been

implemented.

19. Your petitioner submits that for a long time litigations were

pending on the question whether the trained candidates obtained

primary teacher's training certificate upto 2004 - 2005 are entitled

to get marks for their training qualification or not and finally on 3rd

September, 2015 the Chairman, District Primary School Council,

Malda and the Commissioner of School Education being the

appointing authority and approving authority disclosed their policy

to recast the panel after awarding marks for training certificate.

20. Your petitioner further submits that as under the statutory

recruitment Rules 22 marks are allotted for training qualification

and the petitioner has got such training qualification, thus the

petitioner is entitled for getting such statutory marks but the

12

respondent authorities illegally, arbitrarily, whimsically denied to

award such marks to the petitioner, accordingly, kind intervention

is highly warranted under Article 226. of the Constitution of India.

21. Your petitioner submits that as the Special Leave Petition

(Civil) No. 16781 of 2011, preferred by the State of West Bengal

have been disposed of without interfering into the judgment and

order dated 12th April, 2011 passed by The Hon'ble Division Bench.

Thus, the respondents are under obligation to recast the panel after

awarding marks for training qualification and the respondents

particularly, the District Primary School Council being the

appointing authority is under obligation to recast the panel after

awarding marks for training and send such recast panel to the

Commissioner of School Education for his approval and the

Commissioner of School Education is under obligation to satisfy

himself that the rules and procedures in respect of preparation of

panel have been followed and only after such satisfaction accord

approval to the panel.

22. Your petitioner submits that the approval granted to the

panel long back in the year 2010 without awarding marks for

training qualification was not prepared following the Rules and

13

procedures for preparation of panel, accordingly the approval even

though awarded in 2010, is in violation of statutory provisions

under Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 10 of the Recruitment Rules, 1991, thus

such approval of panel is nullity and liable to be declared as void

ab-initio.

23. Your petitioner submits that as the marks allotted for training

qualification was not awarded to the trained candidates at the time

of preparation of panel in the year 2010, thus the Commissioner of

School Education would have not accorded approval to such panel

in the year 2010 and having no valid approval of panel the steps

taken on the basis of such illegal approval are bad in law.

24. Thus being aggrieved and/or dissatisfied with the impugned

action and/or inactions on the part of the District Primary School

Council, Bankura in not recasting the panel of primary teacher

after awarding marks to the petitioner for her training qualification

and send the same recast panel to the Commissioner of School

Education for his approval, your petitioner begs to move this

application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the

following amongst other:

14

GROUNDS

I. For that the petitioner passed Madhyamik Examination as

well as primary teachers' training qualification;

II. For that the petitioner's name was duly sponsored from the

office of the employment exchange for the post of primary

teacher under the District Primary School Council, Bankura.

III. For that as the petitioner, on the basis of marks came within

the zone consideration for appearing in written test, thus the

petitioner was asked to appear in the written test scheduled

to be held on 6.12.2009 and the petitioner duly appeared in

the said written test.

IV. For that though no panel was published. However, only the

particulars of successful candidates were made available

through the website of the respondent No.4.

For that as the petitioner was not awarded marks for her

training qualification, thus the petitioner has been denied of

appointment as primary teacher.

15

VI. For that a writ petition being W.P. No. 9307 (W) of 2010 was

filed challenging the impugned action in not awarding marks

for training qualification and the said writ petition was

disposed of in the light of the judgment and order dated

29.06.2010 passed in W.P. No. 2580 (W) of 2010.

VII. For that the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 8022

(W) of 2010, challenging the action of the respondents in not

awarding marks for her training qualification.

VIII. For that writ petition being W.P. No. 8022 (W) of 2010 was

disposed of by the Hon'ble Single Bench, High Court, Calcutta

in the year 2010.

IX. For that the writ petition being W.P. No. 2580 (W) of 2010 was

disposed of by directing the State of West Bengal to frame a

scheme for the writ petitioner.

X. For that challenging the order dated 08.07.2010 passed in

W.P. No. 9307 (W) of 2010, an appeal being M.A.T. No.1428 of

2011 was preferred and the said appeal along with other

similar appeals were finally disposed of by the judgment and

order dated 12th April, 2011 passed by The Hon'ble Justice

16

Amit Talukder (As His Lordship then was) and The Hon'ble

Justice Pravat Kumar Dey ( As His Lordship then was)

holding thereby that the appellants would now stand qualified

for the post of primary teacher and the deficit marks

obviously, would be required to be given by the authority

concerned in the light of the discussion therein.

XI. For that challenging the judgment and order dated 12th April,

2011 Special leave Petition (Civil) No. 16781 of 2011 was filed

by the State of West Bengal.

XII. For that the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16781 of 2011

along with other similar matters have been disposed of by the

solemn judgment and order dated 19th August, 2015 without

interfering into the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble

Division Bench on 12.04.2011.

XIII. For that though by the judgment and order dated 29.06.2010

The Learned Single Judge directed the State of West Bengal to

frame a scheme and no appeal against such order was

preferred by the State of West Bengal but during pendency of

the appeals no scheme was framed

17

XIV. For that after disposal of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.

16781 of 2011 a contempt matter being W.P.C.R.C. No.286

(w) of 2015 was taken up by the Hon'ble Justice Ashoke

Kumar Dasadhikari. Wherein the Chairman of Malda District

Primary School Council and the Commissioner of School

Education given an undertaking before this Hon'ble Court

that they will recast the panel after adding marks of training

certificate and to sent to the Commissioner of School

Education and the Commissioner of School Education will

grant approval immediately.

XV. For that the respondents are under obligation to recast the

panel for the post of primary teacher of the District Bankura

prepared in the year 2010 after awarding marks for training

qualifications and send the same to the Commissioner of

School Education for his approval.

XVI. For that as the Commissioner of School Education is under

statutory obligation to satisfy himself as regards fulfillment of

Rules and procedures in preparing panel before according

approval and in the instant case though statutory marks for

training was not awarded to the candidates in violation of

18

statute, thus impugned approval granted by the

Commissioner of School. Education (the then Director of

School Education) to the panel in the year 2010 is bad in law

and the same is liable to be declared as void ab-initio.

XVII. For that the District Primary School Council, Bankura in not

taking any steps for recasting the panel awarding marks for

training qualification and send such recast panel to the

Commissioner of School Education, accordingly kind

intervention of this Hon'ble Court is highly warranted under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

XVIII.For that the impugned action and/or inaction on the part of

the respondents are highly illegal, arbitrary, whimsical as well

as prejudicial to the valuable rights of the petitioner.

25. Your petitioner submits that there is no other alternative,

legal, efficacious speedy remedy than to move an application under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India and seek appropriate relief.

The relief sought for, if granted, would afford full, adequate and

complete remedy.

19

26. Your petitioner states that the records of the case are lying

outside the Original Jurisdiction but within the Appellate

Jurisdiction of This Hon'ble Court.

27. Your petitioners state that no other application has been filed

on the same self cause of action before any Court of Law.

28. That in the above stated facts and circumstances submission

of any representation by the writ petitioner would be an empty

formality.

29. This application is made bona fide and for the ends of justice.

Under the circumstances stated

above, your petitioner most

humbly prays that Your

Lordships would graciously be

pleased to issue -

a) A writ of and / or in the

nature of Mandamus

commanding the Respondents

and / or their men, agents or

subordinates and each one of

20

them to show cause as to why the

respondents particularly the


Bankura should not be directed

to recast the panel prepared in

the year 2010 after awarding

marks for training qualification of

trained candidates and sent the

same to the Commissioner of

School Education for his approval

forthwith;

b) A writ of and / or in the

nature of Mandamus

commanding the Respondents

and / or their men, agents or

subordinates and each one of

them to show cause as to why the

respondents particularly the

Commissioner of School

Education should not be directed

21

to issue necessary direction upon

the District Primary School

Council, Bankura pointing out

the defects and/or mistake in not

awarding marks for training

qualification and asked the

Council to rectify the defects and

mistakes and to submit the

panels to him with correction for

approval forthwith;

c) A writ in the nature of

Certiorari directing the

respondents and / or their men,

agents or subordinates to

transmit all relevant records

pertaining to this case before the

Hon'ble Court so that

conscionable justice may be

administered;

22

d) Rule NISI in terms of

prayers (a), (b) and (c) as

above;

e) An interim order do issue

restraining the respondents from

giving any effect and/or further

effect to the purported panel for

the post of primary teacher

prepare in 2010 till the disposal

of the writ petition;

Interim order in terms of

prayer (e) above;

g) Any such other or further

order or orders, direction or

directions as to Your Lordships

may deem fit and proper.

And your petitioner, as in duty bound shall ever pray.

Prepared i my office,

MaCiLt

Advocate

TualaVa.,4 known to me t\ncbv.“ Deponen

---CQVkay elmoitttjt\ Clerk to Mr. S.B. Mukherjee

23

AFFIDAVIT

I, Radharani Mandal, c/o - Bhimsen Mandal, aged about years, by faith - Hindu, by occupation - Unemployed, residing at Vill + Post Office - Supur, District -Bankura, Pin - , do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows:

1. That I am the petitioner in the instant petition and as such

am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. That the statements made in paragraph Nos.1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11,

15 and 16 thereof are true to my knowledge and those made in

paragraph Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 17 are infoimation

derive from the records which I verily believe to be true and the rest

are my humble submissions before this Hon'ble Court.

I certify that all annexures are legible

Advocate

Advocate

i r Solemnl affirmed before me on

this 4) day of December, 2015

COMMI SIONER.

ADMIT InclexNa .0077. -231

'.NI VANDAL

ROLL r 0822

NO! 0 0 5 d

•

Deputy Secretary (Exam.)

A iltivoroarrR # -7- /

WEST BENGAL OS-RD SECONDARY EDUCATION-

:,h-t7mcr mAND AL

AltadiNarnik P(2.1 sha (Secondary Examination), 1991

clil birth is ELEVENTH

'r•4,leell hundred arra SE VG NTY FDLII>

day of OCTOBER

SUBJECT COMBINATION

—> BENGALI

IADL — >BIOLOGY 1.

SL-> EN GLISH(NE W SY L )

EXAMINATION CENTRE

' in the Admit Card Without the approval of the Board will disqualify the Candidate from sitting at this or any P-

wht(-11 answers in the Non Language subjects can only be written are Bengali. English. Hindi. Nepaii. Ory4

cam evicted be carefullAreoerved. 0 05673

al

^,•iraBxure

in „,,

foregi...nn

by .

on ibis tg, Of•Pg,”

Comrmssioher of AffIdavIt High Court. Appellate Bide

Calcutta

rND lire

MA

RK

SH

EE

T O

F M

AD

HY

AM

IK PA

RIK

SH

A (S

EC

ON

DA

RY

EX

AM

INA

TIO

N) 199

1

(i)

z

C

O

C

C z

*

— 0 IA JD > 0 J3 7 Z X • 0 0 I

EZ 0 M

IN) r- 0 a ra -n

< C 0

O

WORK EDUCATION -to (FULL MARKS -- 50) Q

PHYSICAL EDUCATION • (FULL MARKS-30)

O

SOCIAL SERVICE 0 t- (FULL MARKS — 20)

GROUP TOTAL (FULL MARKS — 100

NO

LIV

NI8

INO

0 H

31-1/

S1H

0)

A> a) m

cn O 0 >

z m co •

O-w H

x m rn

0

0 -n >-

rn

r O

0

3

C) O

0)

SECOND LANGUAGE. (FULL MARKS — 100)

PR9L1P,..TPTAL (FULL"MARItS — 300)

MATHEMATICS (FULL MARKS —. 100)

PSC. (WRITTEN) (FULL MARKS 90)

PSC. (ORAL) (FULL MARKS — 10)

LSO. (WRITTEN) (FULL NARKS -- 90)

(ORtiLI) /4M-04fitikcS-1-rIk0i

GROUP TOTAL (FULL MARKS — 300)

HISTORY (WRITTEN) (FULL MARKS — 90)

C

r

C)

X -n r

Z • r0 0 r CO C r

CD 0 " 0 0

(S1O

GIN

AS

HISTORY (ORAL) (FULL MARKS— 10)

GEO. (WRITTEN) (FULL MARKS — 90)

GEO. (ORAL) (FULL MARKS — 10)

va

ROUP TOTAL tPOWMARKS — 200)

fir

AODITJONAL *. (.5.01(t"MA: 1711S r 1 OD)

0

1Y

ON

VW

N

3g0

411 4

9

SS

00

0 Z >

I-1 C

ildry

eefi

c r

— J

WfiV

AV

AG

IA

0

r r

ga

1.7 1,

;1- c-J ti g

0.

:`? r1;

a ka

tv

C

any

meN

Jap

un

Cn

DISTRICT PRIMARY SCHOOL COUNCIL BANKURA

SELECTION TEST FOR RECRUITMENT OF PRIMARY TEACHERS — 2009

ADMIT CARD

Date :06-Dec-2009 (Sunday)

Time :12 noon - 12:30 p.m.

Name :RADHARANI MANDAL

Cateoory :SC

Address: SUPUR,P.O.: SUPUR,Dist: BANKURA

ID No :SC/K/0082

Roll No :1 0 7 1

Examination Centre : RANKURA NINDO UGH SCHOOL,BANEURA

Important 1) Please bring this Admit Card at the examination centre 2) The candidate shall be required to find out and occupy the seat allotted

to him / her at least 30 minutes before the commencement of the examination.

3) Your admission to the test Is purely provisional 4) Use HB Pencil only for answering questions -- PLEASE SEE OVERLEAF Secretary

2 n e_po r

&fl

a

akrinexure ................... .... .....

to in paragraph ........ . .. foregoog Petition slime

by.......... iy2R-4,1 5

on this .........

Commissioner of Affidavit High Court, Appellate Side

Calcutta

- 21-kr vsscsva.z.A.., fr— 5

1.111q. srp-.

siaitrairs'irittiadomiln4.qttv

gasexilosi4

eir.,4:Vrthr,, ,,:,;16%10,,:ai$

••

DI rtua BIRBHUS

IN 1HE HIGH COZIZAT CALCuri A

CIVIL APP‘ V •igilusolcriorq

A Mernorand u fn of ,Aii141 tient OrCifli"

t 3,

T.1140. of".;:t

W.P,.t.tio. 9307 iv!) %0.1,0

In ihejrr.atte( or . • r)

1 of "4azia King,„

•

sesidlog at J.W.

Disifict

diftnurn•

2. .Tama) Sfurnar Outta;" son of Arnuiya

• Dag, residing at Village and Post .Office

4r

-7 Ar11001, policy stac..-o muairei,

•orstocr -

3. Subraw ?'hag'., tit r)a-a..)• atm

011o:th, residing at VI:tacit-I gdliturt, post

011ic.te •:,134Kaikutt, Du-trice -• Birbnufis.

•

District : Birbhum


CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

A Memorandum of Appeal; from Original Order

M.A.T. No. of 2010

W.P. No. 9307 (W) of 2010

In the matter of :

1. Moblul Karim, son of Buie Karim,

residing at Village and Post Office

Kazipara, Police Station - Labpur,

District - Birbhum.

2. Tamal Kumar Dutta, son of Amulya

Dutta, residing Village and Post Office -

Amdol, Police Station - Murarai,

District - Birbhum.

3. Subrata Ghosh, son of Dasarath

Ghosh, residing at Village - Kulkuri,

Post Office B. Kulkuri, District -

Birbhum.

4. Alohljlt San a, son of Paresh Nati%

Saha, residing at Village andPas; Office

Lavelerta, police ScatIon ^ isajnagnal.

OlstriCt - Blrbhurrl.

5. Arllutarnan, son orNiaMUi Bash. •

at Village Onaldhaapi Pero

residiM

, •

(Near Bial Bhai beicaryl, post Office and

ct

Police Btatton RarnpUrhet, Distri

6. manasi sonedee, sail b( Aalt.pt

frigkheitieel.realaing at Village Sagaifla,

FeSt Ce Thiba, District - Birbhuin

.

7.,. 4asilb Cnatterjeet sin of C.hondi

DaS cinatterjee, residing • at Village and

Post Office - trahpur (Sabi.' Para), District

-. 51rbhum.

Na51M BMW daughter of 'Abdul

Anad AIL re5ielig at Vlilaila Bagurs:.aco,

Post . Office - Modhura,

District

MOD

SUkanta pally, District - Blrbhum.

10. AneXui Malah, son of Karlip

residing,at Village arid Post Offlze

Modhura, Police Station - Naltiao,

OiStrict Filrohunt

11. Arun Sardar, son of NICM81 Sardur,

esiding at Village. - Bagsina, Post Office

Thiba, Police Station • Labour Dr

ia:rict

SIrtohum.

.

la Per;ean, daughter of A.K.M. -12 Naz

Office - Gossainpur, ponce Steil

Nainau, District:— eirohurn.

•

.Sirbhurn,

Rebeya Khatun, daughter of Md. All

Towarez, residing, at Village and Post

Ftarnpurhat, NtschintaPur,

° Office

.Menazuddln, residing at Villageandoiost

•

'sem

4.

1.3; Zohlruddin Avid., son or Abdul

•Rokid;resIding at.VIllage' and Post office

• .; GOSSIIMpur,°015tria - Efirbhunl.

14. • Mantu Kumar Sadhu, son of Late

''Tarapada Sadhu, residing at Village-

Selarpur, post Office

Sanapur, Police

Station • Sadaipur, District - Blrbnum.

of Abonl

Village -

••• Kusurntia,

• 17; °Debasisb Gtiosti, son of Narayan I •

handra Ghost), riaMding at viiteoe

SUjit Kumar. HondaI,. on

Nath Mondal, re-Sliding

Kti$W710a, Post ° fifties

District - alrbhyrn.

16. 33tindranath Mantis) son of

Dayarani Mondai; re-siding- at Village and District.

Office Otibrajpur,

Post

Slrbrium.

at

•

:1

ra\

Shabaniganj, Post Ofsilee Rasa, District

--151rbbun-i

'18. Avijit Mondai, Son. bf Gangadhar

-140ndal, residing at Village 'and •Post

Office • Del-10004015Oct.- Birbnum.

19. Goiarn Arnbia, Son• of Late Abair

Village - Sri Krishni Put Rout, residing at Park, Post Office - Rarripurnat District -

81rbhurn.

20. Mlianmay 8andepabnyay, son of

SWapan Kumar BandepadnYY• re5101n9

at*Village - ()banal, Post Office - ()What

District - BirblaUrre.

21.. CrttnrriOy Vey, son of ,

sushi) Kr.

Dew, residing at Village Lidaypyr, Post

Office - Soots, Police Station Nanoor,

District - airbilcurn.

•

22. Md. Sanuar Ali, son of Md. Forman

AU, residing at Village - Bahirgora, Post

Office - B.K. Chungri, District - Birehum.

23. Abhipjlta Singha, son of Satya

Sudha .Singha, residing at Baruipira,

Stirl, District - 81rbnum,

24. Abu Ralhanisson of Md. Mansur Ail,

residing at Village a- Kanaipur, Post Office

• - A. Kanalpur, Police. Station Margram,

District Birbhum.

25. Birnalendu Sarkar, son of Adhir

Kumar :Sacker, residing at Village -

Kocasur; Post Office - Kotasvr; District -

Blrbhurn.

26; kakhl Kanjilak. daughter of Sri

Sadhant 'Kumar Kanjlial, residing at

Rampurhat Ralipar Godalara, Post orrice

—Rarnpurhat4 District .2 81 urtaitiA 95D° egmSIM.

Vatt

sa;

••••• some.

e

27 Sonair Kona!, daughter or Sadhan

Konal, residing at IVIilage and Post Office

- Kiranhar, Police Station . • Nanbor,

District - Blrbhufn.

28.. -Profulla..Pal, son of Probodh Kumar

Pal, residing at V,Iiiage - Asapjala, Post

Office - Nbrayanpur, Police Station

Rampurhati District - 8Irohurn.

29. PalaSh Chandra Banerjee, son of

Adhir Kr. Banerjee, residing at Village -

Tarapith (Dham), District - Birbhum.

30. Shiprat Banerjee, daughter of

Sukumar. .5arierjpe, residing

at village

and Post. price -Tarapith, District -

Blrionurb. :

cit?",40

3

31, Praicash irdiazurndar, son of Sree

•

r, residing • at Village Krishna Ma;urtida and Post Office - Tejhati, District -

•

Blrbhurn. Appellants/

Petitioners

•Verai:

The State ,of West 'Bengal, service

1. School Education

through the Secretary, Department (Priman,), Government of

West Bengal, Writers' BuildIngi, Kolkata

700001.

2.

OireCtor of School Education, West City,

Bengali BlitaSh. Bhaban, Salt Lake '

Kollatil • 700091,

Ohairrron, 8IrUnum District Primary

School Council, Post M.

District - Birphum.

Office Yuri.

•

Ohl

9

School

slrbhurn Olstrict. Primary

a.

, . Office

Surf, District

Council Post

Birbnum.

SChRols

5. The Oistila Inspector of

(Primary Educition), Birbbum, Post

ist Office -

Suer and Odct

. alrbhurn

osite Parties

„ Respondents/ Opp

•••

Form No.J(2)

'IN THE HIGH cO1MT. AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE1VRISDicrt ON

SEEPS

PRESENT: The Han'ble gr. Aluatioe Aiziit Talulcdar Arid The lion* 514:. Justine flub bat Kutner Pet

C.A.N. 9053. 002010

ELast142112112USIS Sara pa Prodhag..4.Appallaat

Manus. State of West Bengal 4 Ors....Respoadents

With 6l,A.:2% 1267 9(2010 ag2.0291C2232

Oita Real Mut...Appellant .Versus.

State °CM-4403(mgal & Ora. Witht

lyarnotoi1.A.T.1269 o(201,0 .

Brijosnitou Ulm t Arentus•

State of West Bengal Ea ars....ftespoacients

With

isarminulian s • ta ....Appellant .versus

The State °Most Bengal & Ors Respondents

with hua 162t... 414Laj.

Mobial Matta 84 Ors.....Appellants •••Vorsual.

State or West Soap! & Ors....Ruspondeats

•

• With tit,A114.14.2ar-2S2

Ant/p11111 0/1013.4 & Ors...Appelliats WarellS-

State of Welt Boagal Co Ors...RespOatatts •

With 14.thr..1406 of .20;0 •i.taa ‘6 of201.1.1

•itrastal guniir diigiannt.1 th Ors......apPalants Nereus.

State a Wast IBetvgal....Respondent

For the Appellants : Chatterse an 14,A.T.taenaista of 20r0 Shri Arabi:Ada

For the Appellant In r.g.s. 23 of 2011

For the Appellant In F.M.A. 216 of 2011

- par the State In all the Appeals

Shr(P.S.Deb Burman

: Shri Asish Sanyal

Shri Joydeop Kar Lc& Ada Cievr ge-tawchx.

Shri Saikat Safterjee,Ld, ,Junlor Govt. Advocate'

• Se..a2231

(-1 a 11

No.9307 (W) of.2010(M,A.T.1420 of 2011) on 08/07/20

2010(M.A.T.1425 of 2011) on 29/06/2010', \ALP: No.14568(W) of 2010 (MAT 1287 of.

2010) on 11/08/2010, In W.P. No. 14587(W) of 2010 (1.4.A.7.1289 of 2010 on

11/08/2010 and in W.P. No.9441(VV) of 2010 (F.Ivt.A.21$ of 2011) on ' 08/07/2010 and

have been, heard out simultaneously, those are being disposed of by this Judgment,

which will cover all the appeals.

In &der tO•better appreciate. the points canvassed in this appeal, it would be at

first.necessary to see the details of the order. By We Impugned order under appeal His

Lordship had direeted., •

.•!whis whit petition -label; be govexned by the . .

.

. -. dlosoaons- given by, this. torts') 'in the 111;4010n end

p . ' • • order daktsa. 2pth, Juno. ataso, pastreed in W.P. zsap cw) ot

. 202.1 (Vaispa. goy vs ,,' State of 'alOst .B.ongal V Ors .) end

standar displosed of sopooatcLtragly .1"

(SEE: Page '311 of the

Paper Stook of YAM. 23 anal 1,d/hen:ling/tor referred to a 014

gafailiWiagaa

All these appeals arose au! of a similar nature of order passed by a learned . •

d in VV.P..No,14425(W, of 2010 (F.M.A.23.6120l1) on

30/08/2010; in W.P.

Single Ju ge 10: In W.P. NO. 9007(W) ot

• .

C-st °— ••

. , •

'This would now talus us to as to•whatts the. ratio o

f the Judgment passed on

20106/2040 in -lumps Roy v. state of West 'Bengal & Ors.. (20103 '3 GLTS6i

In other V1014. for

aiwrocietIng tha orderitstUrnedby the Hontle Single Judge. unless

the decision of TuMpa soy v. State of Weit.13ongeS S. Ors.(supra} Is -noted. it would

be of no avall.(SEE: Page 312 of the said Paper Sop*

Accordingly, vie would see the said.decislanibelore entering Into thd question

raised in the appeal. lumps Roy v. State of West Bengal & Ors. ono (suPral, in

fact relied on the' decision of TUIsi 'Sateen v. State. of West Bengal reported in

(2008)4 CHNT89. The order passed in

Turnpa Rot V. Stays of West Bengal & Ors'

can-(supra)

Whet fight of Tuts' Sabath' V..State of West Seegers case (supra)

•

held:

In such circumstances, the State ot,Wost Bengal, rough the Secretary, sec '

°spearmint or School Education ls'dfrectO

to act in terms of the observations

made hareinabOye and announce theculteble policy in the Mattet..„,.

It should be noted that in terms of She direction passed by His LOrdship, the

State of

West Bengal/has formulated a seterne to meet such situation.iseel Affidavit'

-in•opposItion of the State at page SO..

• s

:have beenafgUid by Shri P.S. Deb Sur.nen ard srai A. Sanyel„taired Counsel.

•

.

behalf

Of the respondent noa. 1.2 24 3 (State), Shri Karyilth teamed Junior

is accepted that

the *fit Nal (loner and others, who are similarly

situated end circumstanced, all OP whoin-are now put.in a predioarnent and in a

•

disadvantageous position for fa

•of Melt , shall be treated as a

special call; in other words as a. Ste

themselves by the State of .West

Bengal so as to

ensure .that an ellgmeloursolution would be arrived at, in the

elle:West possible period of time which will enute to Moir benefit and not cause

anyfurtheradversity and which will adaqinttely apprised their grievance. • ,

al:0;8v° bean argued by Steil k Arailnda Ohattulee white the others

The Appe

poveirtrnent Advocate! and teemed AdriltiOnat: Government Pleader appeared.

was not rePresanpd. Neither the Wig, Bengal.

B9ard of Primacy Educution nor the

Although .the trnittarAtats heard on several pays but

the ri.c.T.E.hot being immeaded.

-cosies:road District Printery School Ccuncil did appear.

The arguments' made at the Bar on behalf ol the appellants. If -summarised.

would read as follows:—.

Shri Chatteilee submitted that In the impugned order under appeal it was not

indicated iss to how Tumpa Roy v. State of West -Bengal. AS Ors. case (supra) was

relevant..In Tumpa Roy v, State of West eengal•& Ors,' case (supra) it has not

been stated that certificate obtained by vanclidsdes up to the academic session, of

2004.2005 have no. value. in Tulshl Baksh/ v. State of West Bonsai 'a case (supra)

it has ban Mid, no admission for which has not been recognised by the

haVe- no right of admission front 26103f2008. As such, according_ to Shri

Chatteoee, the case of the appellants cannot be covered .by either of these two

decisions.

it was also submitted thst on the basle.O1 Rule 10 of the N.C.T.E. Act, power of

relaxation were there and the candidates ought to have been awarded 22 marks.

According to Shri Chatter'se in none of these. two Judgments. the provisions of Rule

10 of the N.C.T.E: Regulations ,2D02 was considered. According to him, had the same

been.considarad, he did not haytany'case in this appeal.

it was the case of the appellant that the. decision In both Tumpa Roy v. Stare

of West Bengal 4 Ors(supra) and flash/ Etaltspi.V. Store of West Bengal (septa).

was restricted to the Individual cases and could nottrave any. general- applicetion..He

invited oar attention to .a :Judgment• of. the FOR Bao*oh In W.P. 23.0744 of 2009

(1-nrailinay Show:nick d Ors.. v. The State of West. Bengal '4 Ors, reponed in

(2010)(2) CLJ(0469 where the learned Advocate pentral. who had opposed the

prayer for cancellation of appointment of primer/teacher made earlier since they have

been renderthg service far so many years. M the ihstant case the stand taken by the

&spits CflanaitrIcially. opposite :to use tine, which was taken by the learned Advocate

° General In the other matter, which, •according to and Chattenee, was• absolutely

einconilstent

••••••• •

°

•

it was also submitted by- the teamed Counsel for the appettrent mat

D$ tagards •

the awarding of marks, Ms State

cannot clteatichinate tighong

the candidates vow are in

the sante footing and had obtained the squaliflostion before 2004-2005-as the Rutes in

WOAD of

OW order passed by Tumps.Roy V, State di West Bengal & Ore.

ease uses

came into effect tr; ZOO and 'th

e sante Cannot haVe any iMplication upon Ott present

appellants. Shti Ohtittedee referred to'AftneXUre ft..5 of the affidaVitein-opposition sited

W Me State

(respondent. no. 1,13 and 4). Shri Onattertee by referring

.to the sante,

submitted ttiatthe Order Hot 20654;a(Law)IPL/5348/10 dated 01110/2010 came into

effect on 01/1012010 whereas the order titular appeal • relates, 0 1110817_ effect

Chatted**. submitted , that in rump,

Roy v.1 State of.:W.est"

Bengal & Ore

.

teseissure)

the Court directed the SchOol edudation Department to act in tel

of

the abseptations made-in the said JUdgment and " .........

....any a suitable

policy in the matters

within a period of i(eIght)weeks

from the .date of

commurdpation,of a photostat

certified-copy' of this Jud9ment.°

Mtn by

on. the basis Of thp same.; submitted that the writ petition was

disposed of by His Lordship

in the tight .of the decision of

lumpa Roy v. state of

.. •

Wort BSOgal 6 Ors'

case(supralbelag covered by the ratio of the said decision by

the Judgment and Order

under aPpest•dated ilioarzoio.

The Judgment of Tumpa'

Roy• v.iFtate of Weir &tenger

A Oa; (sepia) was

rendered by the Court'. on

29/0612410. He was of *the view euft before the Period Of eight weeks

wn which the

scheme was.reopiredto be •lomiulated in terms'ol the order passed In

'rumps Roy v.

State of West Bengal a Ore case(supod;

which acttiaily caMa into force with effect

•

from 01/1012010---thie case'of the appellants ian never fair Within the ambit of

the

was much earlier.

said notlfiestlon:as their case

• p

". t IgutthermorS, raferOnoe was made 0 lulcra liaksh/

V. slats °Leg'

• - •

case (supra) with.reEfard

to the Morena, to tne interim order •

was.stated thatlite feCntignent piccolo siested in 2006, or .

.

the 22 matits

Sunirning Shit Ghattorjeo has

ve Stew of

s submItiad that ruishlAaaks

made appellants.

West Betglei 't 04.10

(supra)could have FP application sita

was simply

prospective end did not wash out the existing quollfication already granted.

Shrl •deb Burman. appearing for the appellant 1p F.MA. 23 of 20i1 (Asiranian

Samanta v;

The State of West Bengal & OM.) while supporting Shit Chatteriee, was ?'

also0

1av:The, of theopinlon that the Issue invoivedin

'Nista aitcshi v. Stow of West

Bengal's .

oda OOP* ill different .and the questlotc of validity of the trail-an°. certificate• for

appointment as primary teachers was notioonsidece0 ln

Tashi Wash! v. State of

West Binge 's oast (supra).

Sanyaf.appearing for the' tippellant in F ;M.A. 216 of 2011(Manal Kumar

Agarwa

Shd

i

Ors. v. State or West Bengal) contended that as all• the candidates.

belongetl. to 2004-2005, they were proteekla by clause 10 of the N.C.T.E. Act and

neither the decision of Tut; hi Bairshl

S0 to of West Sengat's ease (supra)

Dor

rumps Roy v. State of West Seaga! & &As

. ups's) case.had any effect upon them.

itS that the State has po authority to quash clause 10 of

Shri Wye, has subm

vetign are. required. to be 'allotted should have been given an the

i.

the N.O.T.B. Act .

.Shri Sanyo! *further submitted that Ilie Ftyies of' 2010 tithe In terms of the

girder e1 Tap a itoy * Slate of West 43engat &

Ors supra) cas was subject to 1

clause 10 of tha N.C.T.E. neguladons.-Slui Sanyal submitted

t the one year

oblate issued by.the Slats PT:.T.1. in respect of the

candidates -lor Me session

2004'4605 Is 1511.vetid,antl survives the decision of w

ish! Bekaa V. q tate of West

t3etWasupa). Aecording.to'Shri Wye!. ths.dealsion of

rulshl Sakshl v. State of

. .

.

Woot•Bangai(sUprs)

did not consider clatIse10- lof the N.O.T.e. llegulatIons,

2002.

.

terhicht:yias:Issueti under th:e tsi.O.T.S. Aet a

4093. Shri Sanyal submitted that clause

.-.2i

•

••

10 expreselistates that one year certifidate for -session 2004.2005 Will not be Directed ....

*yule N.C.T.E. Aet. 4993 snd will be ate good as two year c.ertifIcate grunted under the ,„.

N.c.r.e. Mt and Is entitled. to. all ancillaiy benefits. Intarptedng.the word 'had'

, to the

panultiMate paragreph of the Judornent of ttufshi

Saks& v. State 'of West

Bengal( for Shri Seriyai submitted that as Ma

same did net touch clause 10. which

Speaks for 2004 session,

these candidates eannot be affected by either of me

JudgMentsin Tolshl.Bakshl v. State of WestEiengagstifit a)

or 'Tampa Roy v. State

of West Etential & OnI(eoPre). ‘..

For the State, Shci Kar lean* learned Junior Government

Advocate (Shri

passed. by ,the HonibleiSingle JOdge In W.

No, 14589W) of 2010and W.F. No. Baikal

Banarier0sigued at length that this appeal is restricted siMPIY to the order . ‘ .

14425LW)of 2010. So•tar as Ttimpa Roy v. .State

of West Bengal & orstsupra) is

concerned, Ski tier submitted no appeal

Was ifiled against the stild order, As such, &

k

should. ass accepted that

the order In rturea Roy vi Steta of West Bongs!

. 90(supraloose had. reached its finality. Sithliarly, the reasoning

In Tuts& 138k5111 V.

*State of West Senile 's OSSO ifsuply)

cannot be assailed in this appeal as the

., decision of

roman Roy v. State of West Beggs! & Ors(supf0,

which Is.basically on

the lines of Tulshl eakshi V. Stattort West

Sono! 's.COSO (supra) has not been

appealed against. State or

*ACitordini t6 hri Kari by (010/1111Q loithe decision of

Tumpa Roy V.

West Bengal & 0estsupos)---Ao

scope: of the appeal are unnecessarily being

Education wickthed. He has oulLined the Powers

Asgard to the setting up of the institutions In

the Nig of tiii.N,C.T.E. Mt 'MOS and the West BengalPrimary

tion Act, 1073

and placed before us•tha Rules governing the setting up 410C institutions via- a-vIs

..

. ,

teachers atilleation,

-. On ,Karp as submitted that 22 MOSSO that is in question cannot be granted

as! . •

the appellants are banking ortthe same. who

have fallen Short of the said marks while: (.

the othateitand Ian theif own met .

cannot be discriminated. He has submitted; by

5

s.

•

..•••••••••••""---

e

it is required to adhere to and no coneesslon

that once t• ho Lae have been framede

can be rnasia.

Utacned

Additional GovernMent'Pleader adopts the submission of Shri Kar with

f the warned Junlor•Government Advocate or the State.

After we have heard Shri Chattefd06. Shri Deb Burman and Shri Sanyel (in their

sequences) and ZhriKar and Shrl PhaitrabortV, we would mow proceed to see as to

seque

wheiher the point cart

vaised In West appeais can be sustained In the eye of the

opposition of Shrl Kar and Shri ClialtratnittY:

We have already laid down the basiolpoints whldh Mitre formed the subject

matter of appeal. We would now.sie as to how far the order under, appeal, which is

In

extension of the decision of tinnoa Roy v. State of West

Bengal &

nothing but an

Ors(sofo), whIcit turn was based. on Tu

/Shi Oakshl v. State of West Bengal

held. it would' be pertinent to record. as submitted at the Bat that the

(supra) can be up

Oeclslon of Wahl SaKshi v.. State of Worst. Bengagsuplia)

has been appealed

itridithe special Leave Petilion.ls pending hearlrig before the Hon'ble Supreme

against

Ca

m, As evident from annexure R1 Of the atficiavit-ineopposition of the State at page

Co 29, it appears that the Hoak* Suprerne Court In connection with Special Leave to

appeal (Civil) co;5 of 2009 by Its order dated 06/07/2009 directed :--

• Voloy condoned.

• • issue Notice. rn *The dlasailgn to return the foes Is sowed.°

of the aHldavtt-in-

` From the averments made In paragraph 4(5) and' (u)

opposition bf•the.• State, their. utter helplessness have been shown in respect of the

situation that has arisen. • •- be

For 'proPer appreciation of the. submissions made at the SW, It would

Amn h presided over by Mohit Shah, iG,J. in

Ir 41/4' A ILI 10.•••

9

EthOWITIMEi 01.5. v. The Slates°, West •Bengal• 8 Otis. (supra) .in the

sato Judgment It is round that the teemed Advocate General had taken a stand that

. 4 prayer for cancellation of appointment of primary teachers. which have been Ensue as

fait back as In 1090 to 2005 suffers from gross delay, and acquiescence and the

students who have already obtained .the primary teachers training and secured

employment,—should not be disturbed,%Both, Sihri Chaltedee and Shri Qeb Burman

have beavity felled on the decision in Hirearno,y trhowtnick e Ors. v. The Stale of

West Beard& Ors.(supra) in support of their.proposItion that ihtt.sland taken by the;,

"learned Advocate: General In that can cannot be different In the .present appeal.

Coincidentally tDe other !Judge in the Bench was also a Member-of the Bench, which

rendered bluish! Bakshl's decision(supra), •

We find substance in the same: teamed Advocate General took a stand before

the Firtt. Bench In HIranmoy BhoVunIctit & 'ors. y. The State of West Bengal &

Ors(supre) by way of supporting me case of the !candidates, who qualified before , •

2005. But the, stand of the' State here IS quite. diffetent. -In our opinion; although, the

learned Single Judge In Tampa Roy. v. Stall'91 We* Bengal & Ors(attpre) has dealt

with this point so also the State in their aftkitiVit and tried to justify the stand lakeri by

the ',mined Advocate General to be restricted to that Individual case: we are unable to

persuade ourselves to the said logic. :the problem is- identical and has some

repercussions Involving the Slate. Be it the -teamed advocate General or any other

State Lawyer.y.thoishould be consistent In their views. 'Incidentally, it would not be out

of Place to record that the learned Additional Goverrustent Pleader had submitted on

04/02/2011 mat la all these matters, the leaftledadVOCata Generetvial appeal kV the

.State. AS 'stitch, writ had adjourned the metier .by isvay of apeola4 fixing it. on

14/02/201. tautI In .. none of the date of hearing. it was for a substantial period that due

towarious reasons Uke change of detentlnettort..personei difficuules etc.., the learned.

AdVocata General did not appear. • •

rl

f

With liCation (supra) cannothave ymanner of app

As submitted at the Bar; the scheme vide Order N.o..2065-SE(LaWyoU6s.

348/10 dated 01/10J200 (Page $ of the affidavit In Opposition of the State) sine

came

into effect on 01/10/2010 whereas the order under appeal are much before the

said date and are ahead of eight weeks cut off period as directed by the learned Single

Judge before the period fixed for impternenting the scheme. As 'such,

said scherea..

in our view. cannot

Funhermore the canificate issued by the West Bengal Board Of Primary

Education at Page

.27.0 the Stay Petition in M.A.T. 1268 of 2010(C4.1 9051 of 2010)

clearly indicates that It related to the session 2003-21004. The -advertisement

i!or filling

up the vacant postaof the Ornery' schools azure-•f

page 31 of the Stay

!edam), also relates to the year 2006. -The admit Card issued by the District Primary

School Council page..32 olitta Stay Petition•indicates the tests to be held On

' •

05112,2009. In view of the said situation, wit. ark a the, opinion that the appellants

concerned hathoorpPleted their training and obtained certificates Imuch'ibefora the.

impact of the .decision In Tashi Bakshl V. Stato of West Bongo/01ra)

came Into

•

tn oar understanding of the situation e n13111

regard 'to the fact that the retrospealve effect•

for this

have any operation In the instant cabs.

area. of trip appellantb. case

invert In Tuteni s case..

e appellants.

e

all.

Sakshi ,y..Strue• of Wo:si Bengaltsupro) that ...........

accordingly, we 'direct 911

%Veep unrecognized lastitutfons to reformat the fees to each and

direction in•Paragraph 99 of the said; deelsron rulshi

Flistly, we find the

ev9ty student"

• —

a•allaaassweetow •—•"'"' •

• to

force.

Point for consideration asap whether the order le Tolshl Bakshi V.

R wouldbe a

Sono of west Benintgaupreiwnich was•prictically followeg in

Roy V. State

of West Benoe/ & Ors* caso(supra) and the order under appootlwas

tishoot of

both—would

have any effect. and that toctsetrospectIve 'effect on theft appeuents. if at

- • '

r:k

• amamareaaa.•

has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court'in the 'manner we haCreseen •earil

ra)eis

r..

That apart:since the finding in nriahl Bahl v. Sote of Wept Bertgal(sop

Su Court.-fi cannot be

be said it has reached Its finality. Further,

pending before-the S p as Shit Sanyal has submitted that it has to be interpreted as to Whathet at all

it

it wilt

had

any retrospective effect, we (eel if paragraph 98 and 99 ate matched together.

resolve the difference, In the last sentence of goragraprr 98 of Ti.ashl Bakahi v. State or

West Bengal* catus(suPra) It was held:

".,,,,,The institutions; Which have notfollo

NCTAuthoritywed the provisions

notr hoig NOTE Act and ant not:v*600°d b the

E , had

ht to admit students Emelt, said1

training programme."

V9.......Accordingly Wo dIroca that unitiss these Institutioanyns

are recognized, the y shall -not have any avt

to admit

student In .thal, ins Chu Lieta.a

hority

IfEboth these sentences in paragraph 98 and199 of the said decision are read

aragrah 100, is understood--it cannot be said that

very carefully and conclusion In' p p

the retrospectige effect have.been•givon. It would Invity wet unless these institutions

aro recognised, they shall not have any authority to admit ony studont In their

Institutions". it should clearly be read as a step for ithe future and cannot be read as

annulling the pat.

This is onetaspect of the matter.

We do not see any reason in the submfission of Shri Kar.for the State that as no

'appeal has been filed agelnst•the Judgment of rump° key v. Smut of West 5411901

Orstsupra.).1 should be accepted•that tha appeltants cannot have any case. We are

In absolute dleagreement with Shri Kar. In Ole regard. Atter all; therd. which

but

is

under appeal that haVe been quoted by us. in the foregoing -paragrkihst Is nothin

an• eAtenslori of the order passed In Th

licationaws -Roy v, State of fast Bengal

in

&

-Ors(stiprara oasis: In other words, His Lorclahip has disposed of the will app

view of. the decision. that His Lordship .had senior ettigoc in rumen Roy v. State of

, West-Bengal &Otsisuprars•case and dIrected.that the

same would cover the finding

of the writ application, whose order is under appeal.

SiegalC,

42

lip" obviously, even though the decision or- Tumpa Roy v. State -of West

Bengal & Ors(supra) is not directly-in appeal under us. not it has been appealed

against elsewhere. it be deemed that while hearing the appeal which is directed

against the order passed a Judgment. Whtch has relied on Tumpa Roy v State of

West Bengal & Ors' case(suprajnindirectly, the whole of the Judgment of Tumpa

ROy v. State bfWest Bengal & On.teupre) Is- before us and we have to decide on the

same as any decision taken to thia order, which has not set out the -details nor has

given any Independent reasons. Unfitted to4tave been. covered by -rump° Roy 64,

State of West Bengal & Ors' case(thipre); obviously, the other Judgment indirectly

comes In appeal before us.

.

This would .bring us to a very important aspect of the matter. It has been

stesnuotisly canvassed at the, Bar. OS had Riga 10 .of the N.C.T.E. Regulation been

taken into account in either ibIshi•Bakahl- V. State of West Bengal's case(supra) or

Tumpa Roy y. State of West Bengar& Ore case(supra). the appeals did not deserve

any markt. In fact. Stei Sanyal wasficategaric enough to place Rule 10 of N.C.T.E.

Regulations.of 2002. This point had not peel been met on behalf of the State In our

reading-of the matter, we find that it is.correct, 10 of the N.C.T.Cf Regulations nas

nolbeen considered by the said two Judgments.

• , Rule 10.clearly,filve some relax/aka In such type of crises in some Stales and

time Was given up to thj end of acadepic session 2004.2005 to twitch over from . .

proaremrnee for bringing them in conformity with I the N:C.T,enorms and standards

and 'Cough r,taxatIon in respect of such type of cases given As Such, had the

decision of TulshiBakehi v. State of West-Bengt: re (supra) or TuMpa Roy v. State of

West Benin! & Pra(aupra) considered:An its' true light, the fact of Rule to of the

N.C,T.E.. Regulations, 2002—It would 'have made all the difference and tne

candidate's wOuld atasid covered by the. sanitt4c. filiagritsi, 44%7 -to sari. •

• • .;

•

43

.AccordIngly. from a wholesome apprec.iation. of the entire Issue before us. we

feel that the,ca *las of the present.appeUants have no nexus with the decisplin of either

Tulshl Balrehl v. Skate of West Etengel's case(supre) or Tumpa Roy v. State of West

Bengal & Ors' case(supra)

Accondingly, we would. set•aside the order under appeal including the Judgment

and Order passed in W;Po.Not2580(W) of 2010 on 29/08/2010 and allow the appeat.

;me appellants would now stands:parted lot the pcist of Primary Teachers anif

the deilt marits.obvlously. would be fecttilrad to be given by. the authority concerned

in the41ght of nor aforesaid discussion.

VVtathese directions the appeal stands-disposed of.

• No.order as to costs;

I agree.

sir Pp 1",

'4Scit ic,Det .3. (Prabhat KAnnar Doy,J.)

saissussaattsmon.ustazguaimair ...—

tatilismtW1=4.4 41".""nr-r.

taieseis. siessos-

it

.immediately after we have pronounced- the aiSresaid Order

in" presence of the learned Oos.uesel tor the Appellants and for the RespOndents, Shri Ku for the Ocespohdent has prayed for stay of

dutittaresaid'Order for a period of four weeks.

According to Shri Ku tinlessi the same is stayed, the °

reperalssion It would have would uhsettle• the settled.posiuun.

Shri Oatterjee and Shri Deb flantuth for the. Appellants have

.scriousty opposed the prayer of OA 4%

• We have carefully beardkb:I sflmissions In this respect

and ht4weighed the probabilities for giant of a stay of the•Order

passed by us. We feel that any !prayer for stay of Our Order would

result hi feather pushing the fats of thisktinfortunate Appellants, whv..hate been pursuing their relief for le:rong• period of time. in

the event any stay, is grante:d, it would have effect on the lute of

these Appellants. and as we. ha 'c found it would not be in the

interest of Justice. to accept the prayer• for stay, we regret the

wee. •

As ipmyegi.plor, urglup Shopstat copy be made avadabte to

all the parties.

vista Talukdar °

(49:7475017 ) (Ptabloat Kumar pey;...1)

Ca"-' Sb

tAveiziCiAtc. 11_

CasepOta,i e

STATU$ L • SPOZED

Special Ceave Petition

4Pleault

Maibanectett To Subpitt ;titter

Petalle'

Respond Ad AdVOCS

COL JoltS.

• f.i....2....Hc i%;.4 _....-4;64 ' 71•VA

.9;_r_....19%-.

• • , s.tIt.,i;

9 (917,5. 1o:

)

-,...-- , « High yettifirici.,1..t...,- Arublo

..4 1.z.1,•-:: ,..;.,....r.

• Co e:;•••:: ,.....

• 1: v,IV I NotAisliabis

sERVICSUATIERSOEORurawsrmatisFERicolaP.AsSioNATE .. °

• APPOINTICEDa. .

-Listing DetaiLs

•

Loft&

MR.

•

SaliddaY. Add a and- laid34 PM

Aip (c) Vo.1s16S/20t9 4 COnneOted W., ttil**1

A

.A,

1TEM NO.7 counT 140.1 •

'sscr.tos s

'S' 8 TYR-.14 E C0.17 R V 0 1' .1 N D.I a f

RECORD or sitpczarDpss

Petition(s) Lex Special. Leave

to Arai :(c)-:No(o)", 15163/2009

(arising out of' impugned final lindgMentiand order dated 01/10/2008 in WP No. 4107/2006'passed by the Sill Court Of Cilcutta)

smug rpi'vlaumaNDA 2.T.T.INST.I ORR. .....:.__

Petitioner(s)

VIRE=

MAR SETH & ORS.

Respondent(s)

(With aPPln, joy for

dtrections, intervention, interim relief and

. office report).

.

t WITS . • (

(With appin.(s) for c/delay in tiI444

OLP and Office SLP(C) No. 28917/2609

•Mith InteriM Relief and Office Report): SP(0) No. 24284/20101

(With appin.(s) for substituted:service, for addition o7:' parties ih SLP(C) No. 16767/2011

• . •

the array at parties, intervention, Interim Relief and Office

(With applA.(s) for

t

intervention;pubetituted-servace and appin. for 'Report)

. SLP(C) No, 164682612

de-tagging and Office.Report)

(With appin.(s1 for impleadment; substituted service, Interim .SLP(C) No. 16781/2011

Relief and ("trice Report)

• • SLP(C) No.. 16924/2011

41,

..gts741UXJ.Or

subitituted:service and Inte ' RelieZiand

• • •

•

.

Itappi4:itsi..foresemption tvOn.fiff:ing

•o/c of.t#0,iopogood

stArAcINo. 0929/2011

•

-,-4,t,...1,1",nt, dis*otioopterstri. Relief

and Office RePOrt).

,

(With appin:(i) for substituted-Service, ante

Relief and Office

SLP (C) No. 16950011

'

. Report)-

• # •

°

•

sLytt..) No.3.51.63/20t.• t Conneatiad tattexa el.

81.0,1C) No. 17118/2011 (With appin.(s) fotimpleadment, Re1/ef and Office Report)

81,1)(C)"Ero. 233/2013 . . ()With appin„(a) for delinking the Report)

Date :'19/08/2015 These petittents

p#tition, digeotions and 02eice

were called On for searing today.

supstitated eervioe,,Intetinl

CORAM : HOW= THE CHIEr JUSTret2 BOWS= Zd JUSTICE lakti7N.M.ISHRA,

'HoWnzp zr.: JUSTICE AbECTAIM ROY

For the Parties : Mr. Anip Saphthey,Adv. • Ms.. Shawn Matta., Adv. Ms. irtanoy,144dhwa, Adv,

Mt. Mt. MS, Mr.

Mt.

aDydeepFMAztradat, Adv. .Pozat Etta' Adv. Sweaty Chattopadhayaya, Ad Aiti'Pawlaw,Adv.

Avi3it:Bhattachatjee,Adv. Epma Sht*vaStava, Adv. Dibakat Borah., Adv. •

Mt. SardSV Sell, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sara4 Eur4',ar Siughania,Adv.

Mt.. JOydeep. MatumdariA4v. Mt. RdhitrDutta, Adv. Mr. Stibbasi0 Showmick,AdV.

Mr, Kuna; Cluessji/Adw...

Mr. 0410. Singh, Adv.

- Mr. Pi Sisk 1C.:Rey, A4v. Ms. Itakall Roy, Mr. MithAleshYlCumar nip% Adv.

Mt. S. K. Bhattacharya,Adv,

▪ Mr. Niraj ,Bobby ?sonars& Adv.

Mrs Setae Chandra,Adv. •

• Mr. Tars-phandta-Shatma,A4V.

Mr. GALWAY CaiiT. Adv.

AgfieSagatallsawaseamm--------77

)9 tx.P(C) 47o.151.312009 4 Connectsa ms tos&

3

Ms. Ablia'qaintAdNe.

Mr. Axup Raperjee,A4v.

Mr. BijanliMmar- Ghoshadv.

Mr. Subhasish ShowmickoAdv. Ms. Aaauika,i Adv.

Mr. S.D. Singh, Adv. Ms. Bharti.Tyagi,Achr.

Mr. K.1.7 Janjani„ Adv. Mr. Pankaj KUmar Singh, Adv.

Mr. ChanChal,XUmar•Gangulye Adv.

Mr. Shibashir* Mis4a, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the. following D A

Both sides would agree:. that in view of the

subsequent .development ihatlhas taken place during

the pendency of the spacial leave.Petitions, in .our

view; nothing survive in these special leave

petitions for our consideration and decision and,

therefore, the special leave petition* are disposed

of .ai.having become unnecepsary.

.As a sequel to the aboVe, pending

iliterlocutorY apPlicatiOrs3, are also disposed of. •

(Neetuflajurii). Sr.P.A. . •

(Vince! Xulvi) Assistant Registrar

°

1

• 03.09.2015

se

W.P.C.R.C. 28¢(W) of 2015

Mr. AniitabratA Roy For the petitioner

Mr...1CatiEfleSh Bliattacktatya Mr. Snatai ul sari

Form

the alleged contemnor No.2

Mr. Subir Sanyo' Mr. Ratul Siswas

,,.'For the alleged conteranor No.1

The Chairmen of the Maids: District Primary School Council

is directed to prepare the panel after adding marks of training

. certificate and to eencHt 'to the commissioner of School Education

by one week from date. The Commissioner of School Education is to

grant approval immediately.

Let the matter Appear after two weeks.

Personal appearance of both the alleged contemnors are

dispensed with until.fitrther order. They undertake before this' Court

that they will comply with the order and approve the petitioner's

appointment.

(AShoicel Kumar Dasadhikaxi,

DISTRICT: BANKURA

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT

JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

W. P. No. 37 55 (W) of 20161

In the matter of: An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;

And In the matter of:

Radharani Mandal ........ Petitioner

VERSUS

The State of West Bengal & Ors. Respondents

PETITION

Sk. Jayed Hossain, Advocate, Bar Association Room no. 15,

High Court, Calcutta. Mob : 9831088783/9804631940

Sk. Jayed Hossain - SARTHAC

Documents