LAWS(CAL)-2011-5-2

NANDINI MUKHERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On May 20, 2011
NANDINI MUKHERJEE Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner claims compensation in this writ petition for loss of income and sufferance for not being sponsored by the employment exchange in view of circular issued by the District Primary School Council wherein the candidate having Bengali as first language in Madhyamik or school final or equivalent are eligible for appointment to the post of primary teacher. Before proceeding to decide an issue involved in this writ petition, brief facts are that the petitioner passed secondary school examination from the Central Board of Secondary Education having Bengali as second language. Subsequently she obtained the primary teacher's training certificate after having qualified in the examination conducted by the directorate of the School Education, Government of West Bengal.

(2.) Subsequently she registered herself with the Regional Employment Exchange, Calcutta on 26.3.2003. In spite of being registered with the Regional Employment Exchange, the name of the petitioner was not sponsored in the selection process initiated in the month of January 2004 and in the month of March 2006. Though the employment exchange initially contended that the petitioner could not appear in the written examination but subsequently it is communicated to the petitioner that the district Primary School Council has set down an eligibility criteria that the candidate must have a Bengali as first language in the Secondary Examination as the recruitment is being made to a Bengali medium primary school.

(3.) The petitioner made several representations to the various authorities raising a protest against the incorporation of the said eligibility criteria when the statuary rules framed under the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973 does not have such eligibility criteria. It is further contended that the statutory authority cannot impose restrictions which is not incorporated in the statutory rules by executive/administrative instructions. The petitioner therefore has laid a claim for compensation for denying the livelihood by such executive or administrative instruction.