PRANATI AGUAN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners pray for cancellation and withdrawal of amendments made to the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection for appointment to the Posts of Headmaster/Headmistress in Secondary or Higher Secondary and Junior High Schools) Rules, 2016 as notified on 24/3/2017 and all subsequent Notifications issued thereafter to the extent of imposing enhanced qualifications for selection of Headmasters/Headmistresses in Secondary, Higher Secondary and Junior High Schools. The ground for seeking rescission of the impugned Notification is infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioners seek to make out a case that the impugned Notification, enhancing the qualification for selection to the post of Headmaster/Headmistress from 45% to 50% in academic and professional qualifications, is violative of the right to equality and that the petitioners have been discriminated against by the said impugned amendment.

(2.) The petitioners are Assistant Teachers of High Schools in the State and are presently serving in that position. The petitioners claim to be eligible for being appointed to the post of Headmaster/Headmistress in the concerned schools on the basis of the marks obtained by the petitioners which are in the range of 45%-50% in the post-graduate level. The petitioners contend that by the earlier Gazette Publication on 21/9/2016 of the Selection Rules, 2016, particularly Rule 4 read with Schedule I of the said Rules, the required qualification of a candidate for appointment to the post of Headmaster/Headmistress in schools was a Master 's degree from a recognized University with at least 45% marks at the post-graduate level.

(3.) By an order dtd. 22/1/2019, a learned Single Judge of this Court had stayed the counselling scheduled to be held on 24/1/2019 until further orders. The stay order as well as subsequent orders extending the stay on counselling were vacated by this Court on 25/6/2019. The selection process for appointing the eligible candidates in terms of the amended Rules of 2016 were allowed to continue and a certain number of seats were directed to be kept vacant for balancing the interest of the petitioners who had approached the Court for relief.