DIPANKAR CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the questions arise in the aforesaid cases are almost same, all the matters are being decided by this common order. For this purpose, we allow the applications for condonation of delay filed in connection with the appeals, which are time barred.

(2.) The matter pertains to the appointment in the post of primary school teachers in various primary schools under the aegis of various District Primary School Councils.

(3.) The facts as projected in the W.P.4455 (W) of 2010 are that the petitioners claimed themselves to be eligible for appointment as primary teachers. They were untrained. However, their names were registered with the employment exchange. The respondent nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 are holding PTTI certificates from fake institutes and they got the bereft of their sponsorship from the employment exchange on the strength of fake certificates. It is further averred that the District Primary School Council, Jalpaiguri, requisitioned the names from the employment exchange for recruitment of primary school teachers in accordance with the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2001. Pursuant thereto, the respondent District Employment Exchange Officer issued a notice published on 8.2.2006 fixing parameters for sponsoring the names of the candidates. The petitioners were within the ratio of 1:5 for participation in the written examination and the written examination was held on 29.11.2009. It is further averred that the respondents Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 were registered with the employment exchange as general category candidates. The respondent No.5 was registered with the employment exchange in the year 1995, respondent no.6 in the year 1996, respondent nos.7 and 8 in the year 2001. They were not holding certificates from the recognised institutions. The institutions from which the certificates were obtained were not affiliated by NCTE. The decision in Tulsi Bakshi & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2008 4 CalHN 789, has been relied upon to contend that such institutions had no right to grant the certificates. As such, the certificates issued in favour of such candidates are liable to be cancelled and no credence can be given to such certificates. Large number of illegally sponsored persons have been favoured with the sponsorship on the basis of their certificates obtained from unrecognized institutions. 150 candidates were sponsored on the strength of PTTI qualification and not on the basis of the seniority in employment exchange, as a matter of fact, their names could not have been sponsored as a trained candidate. Hence, the writ petitions have been preferred. Prayer has been made to cancel the candidature of the persons who were sponsored by the employment exchange not on the basis of the seniority as indicated in the Memo dated 8.2.2006 but on the basis of training certificates issued by the unrecognized institutions.