KANIKA BISWAS Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these writ petitions, which were heard analogously, the petitioners who were appointed as enumerators in the census operations in the year 1991 and were registered with the employment exchange in the exempted category and were candidates in the said category for the posts of Assistant Teacher (Primary) in schools under the jurisdiction of the South 24 - Parganas District Primary School Council in the 2006 selection process, have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to appoint them as primary teachers. According to the petitioners though they had participated in the written test, and performances were satisfactory, allegation is they were not selected and appointed as the bio data forms were attested by one Ranjan Roy, who according to the Council, was not competent to attest and certify the documents. Submission was as the names of the petitioners were registered under the exempted category as ex census employees and were sponsored by the exchange and as in two identical matters in Puspita Mondal v. The State of West Bengal, 2011 3 CalHN 852 and in W.P. 8387 (W) of 2010 Pravabati Midya (Sahoo) v. State of West Bengal it was held that appointment cannot be withheld on the ground that the statutory form was attested by the said Ranjan Roy and accordingly directions were issued to provide appointment and as total vacancies available and anticipated vacancies under the law are yet to be filled up, orders as prayed for may be issued. Submissions were that the writ petitions could not be moved earlier as the petitioners were under the bonafide impression that transparency in appointment was maintained by the Council and the State. However, subsequently as they learnt that illegalities were committed by the authorities and High Court had intervened and Council had appointed candidates, the writ petitions have been filed.

(2.) MR . Bratindra Narayan Roy, learned advocate for the petitioners reiterating the statements in the writ petition submitted that as the cases of the petitioners were rejected on a ground which was held by the High Court in W.P. 8987 (W) of 2011 not to be good policy and there has been violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and as South 24 -Pargrans District Primary School Council has accepted the judgment in W.P. 23501 (W) of 2010 which was passed along with Puspita Mondal and consequently appointments have been given even after the expiry of the panel, the writ petitions are maintainable and therefore, order may be issued directing appointment. Learned advocate for the petitioners had relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1986 AIR(SC) 180 in Purushttam v. Chairman, M.S.E.B, 1999 6 SCC 49; in Abid Hussain and Others v. Union of India and Ors, 1987 AIR(SC) 820 and of the Calcutta High Court in Padma R. Thakur v. Secretary, Deptt. Of Home, 2007 1 CalHN 351 besides the judgments in Puspita Mondal and in W.P. 8987 (W) of 2011 in support of his submission.

(3.) MR . Joytosh Mazumdar, learned advocate for the Council submitted that provision for seeking bio data is inbuilt or deemed to be in Rule 9(1) of the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2001 ('Rules' for short) as otherwise it is not possible for the Council to verify the applications of the candidates. Accordingly, the petitioners had filled up the bio data forms and had participated in the selection process.