Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1347 (CAL)

Arghya Bala v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2010-11-24

BISWANATH SOMADDER

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. THE Judgment of the Court was as follows: THE writ petitioner claims to belong to a scheduled caste, based on a caste certificate annexed to the writ petition. He passed Higher Secondary Examination in March, 2001, scoring 45% marks in the said examination. He applied for admission to a private Primary Teachers Training Institute and got himself enrolled for the 2005-06 academic session. According to the writ petitioner, although he completed his training course for that academic session, he could not appear in the Primary Teachers' Training Examination, 2006, since the examination was not held by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education due to pending litigations. THE writ petitioner has relied on a newspaper report, published on 30th May, 2010, with regard to admission in a Diploma-in-Education course, where from it appears that candidates belonging to the scheduled castes/scheduled tribes and other backward classes have been given some relaxation of marks for the purpose of securing admission to that course. THE writ petitioner has also relied on another newspaper report published on 13th June, 2010, with regard to introduction of a 'bridge course' by the Government of West Bengal in respect of PTTI candidates who could not appear for the final examination for the academic session 2005-06. 2. ACCORDING to the learned advocate for the writ petitioner, the newspaper report dated 13th June, 2010, clearly indicates discrimination in respect of the candidates, such as the writ petitioner, by the Government of West Bengal, inasmuch as no reservation has been provided for those belonging to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and other backward classes in respect of the said 'bridge course', although it is otherwise in the case of admission in the Diploma-in-Education course, which appears from the news report dated 30th May, 2010. ACCORDING to the learned advocate for the writ petitioner, this stand of the Government of West Bengal is also discriminatory and is in violation of the Government Order dated 12th September, 1995, issued by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Department. In this regard, he seeks to rely on a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash New Delhi and Another v. K. S. Jagannathan reported in AIR 1987 SC 537 . In this regard, he seeks to rely on a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash New Delhi and Another v. K. S. Jagannathan reported in AIR 1987 SC 537 . On the other hand, learned advocate appearing for the West Bengal Board of Primary Education invites this Court's attention to the interim order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Tulsi Baxi's matter, which culminated into the final judgment and order rendered on 1st October, 2008, (Tulsi Baxi v. The State of West Bengal and Ors.) reported in 2008(4) CHN 789 . He submits that all PTTI candidates who could not appear in the examination for the academic session 2005-06, due to orders of the Division Bench of this Court in Tulsi Baxi's matter, were given an opportunity to appear in a 'bridge course' pursuant to an arrangement made by the Government of West Bengal with the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, and the National Council for Teachers Education. He further submits that the Government Order dated 12th September, 1995, which the learned advocate for the writ petitioner has sought to rely on has not been annexed to the writ petition. In any event, it has no manner of application at all in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, since it would apply, if at all, only in respect of admission to a regular course. He submits that there has been no discrimination against the writ petitioner and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is relied on, has no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. LEARNED advocate representing the State adopts the submissions made by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education. 4. AFTER considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and upon perusing the instant writ petition, it appears that essentially the writ petitioner complains of discrimination, relying on two newspaper reports and a Government Order dated 12th September, 1995, which has not even been annexed to the writ petition. 4. AFTER considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and upon perusing the instant writ petition, it appears that essentially the writ petitioner complains of discrimination, relying on two newspaper reports and a Government Order dated 12th September, 1995, which has not even been annexed to the writ petition. Undoubtedly, the Government Order, if it all exists, appears to have been issued by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Welfare Department and provides for reservation of seats for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes candidates for admission in all educational institutions stated therein. However, the one year 'bridge course', which the Government of West Bengal has sought to introduce, is based on an arrangement entered into by the Government of West Bengal with the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, and the National Council for Teachers' Education. The 'bridge course' has been introduced only because of those PTTI candidates who were adversely affected by reasons of the de-recognition of Primary Teachers' Training Institutes wherein they had pursued their regular course, pursuant to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Tulsi Baxi's case. Thus, a special situation arose where the Government of West Bengal had to take the assistance of the Government of India as well as the National Council for Teachers' Education for the purpose of introducing the 'bridge course' to help those PTTI candidates, which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be akin to a regular course in an educational institution, which is open to admission of general students. In such circumstances, the Government Order dated 12th September, 1995, has no manner of application at all in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The judgment of the Supreme Court relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner was rendered in a completely different fact situation. In that case, petitioners, who belonged to scheduled caste and entitled to relaxation of marks in the qualifying examination under the departmental instructions, sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the instructions were not followed by the Government. The High Court issued certain directions which were challenged. The Supreme Court discussed the facts in details. In that case, petitioners, who belonged to scheduled caste and entitled to relaxation of marks in the qualifying examination under the departmental instructions, sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the instructions were not followed by the Government. The High Court issued certain directions which were challenged. The Supreme Court discussed the facts in details. While holding that the High Court, in the facts and circumstances of that case, was justified in issuing such directions, the Supreme Court observed that the High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. The Supreme Court has further observed that in all such cases and in any other fit and proper cases, High Court can, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the Government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion. These observations of the Supreme Court are certainly not an authority for the proposition that the High Court should interfere in such matters as in the instant case, where the writ petitioner seeks to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court relying on two unsubstantiated newspaper reports and a Government Order dated 12th September, 1995, which is wholly inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 5. 5. FOR reasons stated above, the facts of the instant case as disclosed by the writ petitioner, does not warrant any interference of this Court in exercise of its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution and the writ petition is, thus, liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed with costs assessed as 300 gms. 6. URGENT photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as early as possible. Writ petition dismissed.