(1.) The controversy in these writ petitions relates to appointment of Physical Education and Work Education teachers for Upper Primary Schools in the State governed by West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection for Appointment to the Posts of Teachers for Upper Primary Level of Schools) Rules, 2016. The petitioner's complain that the West Bengal School Service Commission, being the authority responsible for conducting the selection for the posts, has not complied with the mandate of Rule 13(9) of the 2016 Rules. Rule 13 deals with "method of SLST for selection of candidates and preparation of panel for teachers for Physical Education and Work Education". Under sub-Rule 9, the Central Commission has to prepare and publish an Interview List in its website with all details of the candidates to be called for the personality test, category wise on the basis of merit in the ratio of 1:1.4 of final vacancies.
(2.) The primary grievance, as urged on behalf of all 141 petitioners is that the Commission has failed to publish the Interview List containing the details of the candidates as mandated under the Rules. The other grievance is that the Commission has not complied with the requirement of Rules 8 and 9 of the 2016 Rules with regard to information on the available vacancies. According to the petitioners, the Commission failing to publish the Interview List with requisite details has prevented the petitioners from making a proper assessment of their performance compared to the other candidates and their eligibility for the Personality Test as a consequence.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that apart from noncompliance of Rule 13(9) of the 2016 Rules, less meritorious candidates of reserved categories have been included in the list of general category candidates while reserved category candidates with better marks have been placed in the reserved category. In other words, the Commission has not applied the correct standards for selecting the most meritorious candidates for the concerned posts. Counsel relies on an order dated 8th April, 2019 passed in W.P. 947 (w) of 2019 which directed the Commission to comply with the mandate of Rule 13(9) within a period of two weeks and submits that the Commission has not complied with this direction. It is further submitted that no appeal has been filed by the Commission from the said order and the Commission is therefore bound to act in terms of the said direction. Counsel refers to the statements made in the Report of the Commission which would show that the Commission has acted arbitrarily in the preparation of the Merit List. Counsel submits that the said paragraphs would show that the Commission has admitted to following a "policy of deciding" the category under which a candidate is found eligible to be called for interview. Counsel also submits that untrained candidates have been empanelled, as would be evident from the documents annexed to the writ petition, in violation of the advertisement notification dated 16th December, 2016 which had given precedence to candidates having the desired training qualification over other candidates. Counsel relies on a number of decisions in support of the argument made which are (2009) 6 SCC 619, AIR 1996 SC 1378, (2010) 5 SCC 136, (1976) 4 SCC 66 and (2009) 5 SCC 1 on the point of arbitrary placement of reserved category candidates in the general Merit List. Counsel cites Y.B. Patil Vs. Y.L.Patil, 1976 4 SCC 66 for the proposition that the principle of res-judicata can be invoked not only in separate subsequent proceedings but also in subsequent stages of the same proceedings and hence once an order made in the course of a proceeding becomes final, it would be binding at the subsequent stage of that proceeding. The immediate prayer of the petitioners is that the Commission should be directed to publish a fresh Interview List for preparing the Merit List and further that the appointments already made should be kept on an adhoc basis subject to preparation of the final Merit List.