MIDNAPORE ZILLA NIMNA BUNIYADI SHIKSHAK SHIKSHAN PRAPTA BEKAR SIKSHAK SAMITY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is now a well settled principle of law that the Law Courts in the normal circumstances are not to intervene and interfere with the selection process of candidates at the school or college level or in any other interview for appointment including the appointment of teachers since the Selection Committee or the Board constituted for such selection are to assess the capability of the candidates and Law Courts cannot add to or supplement to the individual assessment of the members of the Selection Committee. In this context reference may be made to a decision of this Court in the case of University of Calcutta and others v. Dr. (Mrs.) Mamata Dutta and Others (96 CWN 1066) as also that of supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and Ors. v. Mohd. Mynuddin (1987) 4 SCC 486 ). But this general principle of law has certain exceptions and cannot, however, be said to be of universal application and interference of the Law Courts can be sought for in the event the factual matrix of the matter in issue depicts that the concept of fairness has been given a complete go-by and there are in fact, gross anomalies, irregularities and certain amount of dubious methods being adopted in the preparation of the panel and in the event, the Law Court finds in the factual context, existence of such an unfair attitude on the part of the administration there ought not to be any hesitation to strike down such action or the panel and to do so would be a plain exercise of judicial power. Arbitrariness and motivated actions are opposed to the concept of fairness which ought to be the most accepted methodology of governmental work and the action must be fair and reasonable. Having dealt with the basic principles of law, let us now advert briefly to the factual aspect of the matter.

(2.) TWO writ applications were filed on behalf of the applicants seeking appointment as Assistant Teachers in different Primary School Boards and district Primary School Councils.

(3.) THE principal grievance being in the writ petition that the trained candidates having requisite qualifications were being ignored where as untrained candidates were being impaneled and being appointed in different Primary Schools in the State in contravention of Rules framed by the State Government. The learned trial Judge held that the appointment of untrained candidates as Assistant teachers in different Primary Schools was unauthorised and illegal and on that finding a direction was given to the respondent not to give appointment to any untrained candidates and to appoint only the trained candidates in the recognised Primary Schools in the different districts of the State against the existing vacancies.