ARGHYA BALA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ Petitioner claims to belong to a scheduled caste, based on a caste certificate annexed to the writ petition. He passed Higher Secondary Examination in March, 2001, scoring 45% marks in the said examination. He applied for admission to a private Primary Teachers Training Institute and got himself enrolled for the 2005-06 academic session. According to the writ Petitioner, although he completed his training course for that academic session, he could not appear in the Primary Teachers' Training Examination, 2006, since the examination was not held by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education due to pending litigations. The writ Petitioner has relied on a newspaper report, published on 30th May, 2010, with regard to admission in a Diploma-in-Education course, wherefrom it appears that candidates belonging to the scheduled castes/scheduled tribes and other backward classes have been given some relaxation of marks for the purpose of securing admission to that course. The writ Petitioner has also relied on another newspaper report published on 13th June, 2010, with regard to introduction of a 'bridge course' by the Government of West Bengal in respect of PTTI candidates who could not appear for the final examination for the academic session 2005-06.

(2.) According to the learned advocate for the writ Petitioner, the newspaper report dated 13th June, 2010, clearly indicates discrimination in respect of the candidates, such as the writ Petitioner, by the Government of West Bengal, inasmuch as no reservation has been provided for those belonging to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and other backward classes in respect of the said 'bridge course', although it is otherwise in the case of admission in the Diploma-in-Education course, which appears from the news report dated 30th May, 2010. According to the learned advocate for the writ Petitioner, this stand of the Government of West Bengal is also discriminatory and is in violation of the Government Order dated 12th September, 1995, issued by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Department. In this regard, he seeks to rely on a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of The Comptroller & Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash New Delhi and Anr. v. K. S. Jagannathan, 1987 AIR(SC) 537.

(3.) On the other hand, learned advocate appearing for the West Bengal Board of Primary Education invites this Court's attention to the interim order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Tulsi Baxi's matter, which culminated into the final judgment and order rendered on 1st October, 2008, (Tulsi Baxi v. The State of West Bengal and Ors., 2008 4 CalHN 789. He submits that all PTTI candidates who could not appear in the examination for the academic session 2005-06, due to orders of the Division Bench of this Court in Tulsi Baxi's matter, were given an opportunity to appear in a 'bridge course' pursuant to an arrangement made by the Government of West Bengal with the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, and the National Council for Teachers Education. He further submits that the Government Order dated 12th September, 1.995, which the learned advocate for the writ Petitioner has sought to rely on has not been annexed to the writ petition. In any event, it has no manner of application at all in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, since it would apply, if at all, only in respect of admission to a regular course. He submits that there has been no discrimination against the writ Petitioner and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is relied on, has no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.