TULSHI BAKSHI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge herein is to an advertisement issued by the West bengal Central School Service Commission dated 25th August, 2008 for recruitment to the various categories of teachers within the State of West bengal. It is the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the qualifications that were prescribed in the aforesaid advertisement are not in conformity with the qualifications laid down in the guidelines issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) in exercise of its powers under Sections 32 and 12 (d) of the National Council for Teacher education Act, 1993 (73 of 1993 ). Undoubtedly, the qualifications prescribed in the guidelines dated 3rd September, 2001 and 28th April, 2003 provide the minimum qualification of BE/b. Ed. as an essential qualification for Assistant Teachers. However, the qualification which has been prescribed in the impugned advertisement as an essential qualification is a Bachelor's Degree from any UGC recognized University. The qualification of B. T. /b. Ed. has been prescribed as a desirable qualification. This apparently appears to be in conflict with the qualifications prescribed by the NCTE in the guidelines mentioned above. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the qualifications prescribed by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission are not in conformity with the essential / minimum qualifications prescribed by the ncte, the advertisement is liable to be declared illegal and no recruitment can be made under the prescribed qualifications in the advertisement.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents, however, pointed out that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Basic Education board, U. P. v. Upendra Rai and Ors. , reported in 2008 (3) SCC 432, the issue raised by the petitioner is no longer open to discussion; the matter having been concluded by the Supreme Court, this Court would be bound by the same. Learned Counsel has pointed out the observations made by the supreme Court in Paragraphs-14, 19, 23 and 24 which are as follows:-

(3.) WE have perused the aforesaid judgment. We are satisfied that the matter is squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down by the Supreme court. However, at this stage learned Counsel for the petitioner whilst accepting that the judgment is wholly applicable to the facts of this case, submits that the same has been rendered per incuriam as the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court has not been noticed. We are unable to accept the submission; even otherwise learned Counsel has not cited any particular judgment which may or may not have been noticed by the supreme Court.