RAJIB BRAHMA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the dispensation of justice, Courts are prevented from innovating at pleasure. Neither can they don the helmet of a 'knight-errant, roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness'. At all times, Courts are expected to draw 'inspiration from consecrated principles.' [See Benjamin Cardozo, 'The Nature of Judicial Process']. Bearing such principle in mind, this Court cannot help but observe that there may arise certain situations which require untangling of a complicated mesh of competing rights; where the Court may be required to innovate, not at pleasure but within the realm of perennial common law, principles of equity and good conscience, so as to arrive at an equilibrium of rights i.e., find the best possible solution. Today, this Court finds itself in the midst of one of such situations. The selection of more than 14,000 candidates, is under challenge in the present proceedings. As a natural consequence thereof, their right to livelihood and right to freedom of choosing a profession of their choice, hang in the balance. At the same time, candidates who have assailed the present selection process, are vying for an equal opportunity to participate in a fair selection process which has been allegedly denied to them. Wedged between these competing rights, the fundamental right to education of school children, has remained suspended in a state of limbo. While there may not be enough material to suggest that the school children have received no pedagogical guidance during these past years, it is a reasonable presumption that their education has suffered. There remains little doubt that education is a tool for the betterment of our civil institutions and paves the path to an informed and questioning citizenry. In the years since the inclusion of Article 21-A, it has been reiterated on numerous occasions that the right to education attaches to the individual as an inalienable human right. Since 2016, such inalienable human right has been held hostage by litigation over the propriety of the selection process of qualified school teachers. In other words, the future of children which is often synonymised with the future of this country, has remained in a state of flux and uncertainty over the past eight years. In the said conspectus, whilst arriving at a final decision in the present appeal proceedings, this Court cannot be unmindful of the pressing need to conclude an already protracted litigation so as to inter alia, determine the rights of the appellants vis-a-vis the respondents and ensure that the children who find themselves in the proverbial eye of the storm, are able to realise their fundamental right to education to the fullest extent possible.

(2.) With these observations in mind, this Court shall now proceed to decide the thirty-six appeals which arise out of similar orders passed by the learned single Judge in several writ petitions pertaining to the 1st State Level Selection Test, 2016 for recruitment of Assistant Teachers in (Upper Primary Except Physical and Work Education) in Government aided/Sponsored Schools (except hilly region) (in short, the 2016 SLST) initiated by a notification dtd. 23/9/2016. Since an identical question of law is involved, all the appeals have been heard analogously. The individual facts in the writ petitions may slightly differ but the legal arguments broadly overlap.

(3.) The 2016 SLST was conducted in terms of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection for Appointment to the Posts of Teachers for Upper Primary Level of Schools), Rules, 2016 (in short, the 2016 Rules). The interview list and the merit list were published on 24/8/2019 and 4/10/2019 respectively. The said selection process was challenged in a bunch of analogous writ petitions which were finally decided on 11th of December, 2020. By the said judgment, the entire selection process was set aside and the West Bengal School Service Commission (in short, the Commission) was directed to hold a fresh selection process of all the candidates, who were found to be eligible under rule 12 (2) of the 2016 Rules and to proceed onwards from that stage. The Commission was also directed to verify the validity of the Teacher Eligibility Test certificate (in short TET), academic and professional qualifications etc. as provided under rule 12 (3) of the 2016 Rules. By the said judgment a time frame was also stipulated towards conclusion of the verification process, publication of the interview lists, the merit lists and the subsequent stages of constituting a panel including issuance of recommendation. Pursuant to such direction, the Commission initiated the verification process vide notification dtd. 28/12/2020 and the candidates were allowed to upload their documents. Thereafter by a notification dtd. 19/6/2021 the interview list (in short, IL) was published by the Commission disclosing that the total number of final vacancies excluding 10% reserved for Para teachers was 14,339. In the midst thereof, one Moumita Ghosh and others claiming to be the merit listed candidates published on 4/10/2019 preferred an application for leave to appeal against the judgment dtd. 11/12/2020. The said application was allowed but the appeal was finally heard and dismissed by an order dtd. 12/1/2021 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in MAT 843 of 2020 observing inter alia that such dismissal shall not prejudice the rights of the appellants to participate in the verification process in terms of the notification dtd. 28/12/2020 issued under Rule 12(3) of the 2016 Rules. Thereafter, one Abhijit Ghosh preferred a writ petition being WPA 10789 of 2021 alleging inter alia that the selection process was not being conducted in consonance with the judgment dtd. 11/12/2020. In the said writ petition initially, an order was passed on 30/6/2021 restraining the Commission from conducting the interview. The said order was subsequently modified by an order dtd. 2/7/2021 directing the Commission to disclose the break-up of marks of the candidates, who have not been named in the IL as well as the persons who have been named. In compliance of such direction, the Commission published the new lists with break-up of marks and the reasons for not bringing a candidate in the IL. Considering the same, the learned single Judge passed an order of 9/7/2021 directing the Commission to take care of the grievance of the candidates, whose names have not been included in the IL, upon granting a personal hearing to the candidates, who would file representations individually. A time frame was also stipulated for communication of the orders to the candidates and the interim order passed earlier was recalled. In the midst thereof, another writ petition was filed by one Rajib Brahma and Ors. which was also disposed of on 9/7/2021 itself with a liberty to the writ petitioners to approach the Commission by filing representation individually and a time frame was also stipulated towards communication of the decisions. Aggrieved by the said orders and similar orders passed in other writ petitions, the present appeals were preferred. The said appeals were heard analogously with consent of the parties on 20 th July, 2021 and by way of an interim order the Court directed as follows :