Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1118 (CAL)

Susanta Sarkar v. State of West Bengal

2014-11-27

JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, TAPASH MOOKHERJEE

body2014
Judgment : Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. This mandamus appeal is directed against the judgment and/or order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court on 28th March, 2012 in W.P. No. 4376 (W) of 2012 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was rejected. In the said writ petition, the appellant complained about some irregularities in the process of preparation of panel of Head Teacher under Suti-I Circle for the year 2009-2010. It was complained therein that though initially the petitioner was included in the said panel at Serial No.22 on the basis of his seniority within the said Circle but subsequently, the panel was altered and he was removed from the panel. With this complaint, the writ petition was filed with a prayer for recasting the panel so that his original position in the panel is restored. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Learned Trial Judge giving rise to the instant mandamus appeal at the instance of the writ petitioner. Let us now consider as to how far the Learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case. The writ petitioner was appointed as a primary teacher in 87, Dogachi No.-11 Primary School under Dhuliyan Circle by the Murshidabad District Primary School Council. Subsequently, he was transferred to 72, Sagarmal Primary School within Dhuliyan Circle. Thereafter he was temporarily transferred to 50, Alampur Primary School under Suti-I Circle by the Murshidabad District Primary School Council. A circle-wise panel of Head Teacher was prepared in respect of Suti-I Circle by the Murshidabad District Primary School Council for the year 2009-2010 in terms of Rule 18 of the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2001. In the said panel, the petitioner was included at Serial No. 22. Subsequently, the said panel was rectified and the petitioner was removed from the said panel. The legality of his exclusion from the said panel was challenged in the writ petition. Mr. Bhattacharya, Learned advocate appearing for the Council submits that the appellant/writ petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher of 87, Dogachi No-11 Primary School within Dhuliyan Circle. Subsequently, he was transferred to 72, Sagarmal Primary School under Dhuliyan Circle. Again he was transferred to 50, Alampur Primary School under Suti-I Circle in the interest of Primary Education. Mr. Bhattacharya, Learned advocate appearing for the Council submits that the appellant/writ petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher of 87, Dogachi No-11 Primary School within Dhuliyan Circle. Subsequently, he was transferred to 72, Sagarmal Primary School under Dhuliyan Circle. Again he was transferred to 50, Alampur Primary School under Suti-I Circle in the interest of Primary Education. By referring to the order of transfer to his present place of posting under Suti-I Circle, Mr. Bhattacharya points out that his transfer to the present place of posting was made by way of a temporary measure in the interest of the Primary Education in the said Primary School. He thus, submits that since his transfer to the present place of posting was given as a temporary measure, he cannot be regarded as a regular Primary Teacher under Suti-I Circle. That is the reason which, according to Mr. Bhattacharya, prompted the District Primary School Council to rectify the panel which was initially prepared and thereby the appellant/writ petitioner, was excluded from the said panel prepared for Suti-I Circle. Drawing our attention to Rule 18 of the said Recruitment Rule, Mr. Bhattacharya submits that the said Rule provides for preparation of a circle-wise panel of Head Teachers by taking into consideration the seniority of the respective Primary Teachers within the Circle. He thus, submits that since the writ petitioner/appellant is a Primary Teacher of Dhuliyan Circle, he cannot be considered for the post of Headmaster in any School under Suti-I Circle. He however, informs this Court that whenever the panel of Headmaster will be prepared for Dhuliyan Circle, the seniority of the appellant/writ petitioner will be considered and he will be placed in the said panel according to his seniority amongst the Primary Teachers within the said Circle. In this regard, we have considered the provisions of Rules 17 and 18 of the said Recruitment Rules. Rule 17 deals with the appointment of Head Teachers. It says that the Council shall appoint Head Teacher in every primary school within the jurisdiction of the Council, from a panel of senior-most primary teachers possessing requisite qualifications as laid down in Sub-Rule (1) and Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 6 and who have obtained a Junior Basic Training Certificate or Primary Teacher’s Training Certificate or equivalent. It says that the Council shall appoint Head Teacher in every primary school within the jurisdiction of the Council, from a panel of senior-most primary teachers possessing requisite qualifications as laid down in Sub-Rule (1) and Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 6 and who have obtained a Junior Basic Training Certificate or Primary Teacher’s Training Certificate or equivalent. Rule 18 of the said Recruitment Rules provides that a circle-wise panel of Head Teachers shall be prepared by the Council between January and April of every year on the basis of vacancies occurred or due to occur within 31st December of the said year. On conjoint reading of those two provisions, we are of the view that preparation of District-wise panel was not contemplated under the said Recruitment Rules. Rule 18 of the said Rules is very specific in this regard as it provides that a Circle-wise panel of Head Teacher will be prepared. Here is the case where we find that a Circle-wise panel of Head Teacher was prepared for Suti-I Circle. Since the appellant/writ petitioner is not a regular teacher under Suti-I Circle, in our considered view, exclusion of the appellant/writ petitioner from the said panel of Suti-I Circle cannot be held to be unjustified. We therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is thus, disposed of without any interference of the impugned order. We, however, make it clear that whenever any Circle-wise panel of Head Teacher will be prepared for Dhuliyan Circle, the concerned authority will take into consideration of the seniority of the appellant/writ petitioner with reference to his date of appointment as a primary teacher in 87, Dogachi No-11 Primary School under Dhuliyan Circle and place him accordingly in the said panel. We further want to clarify that if any panel has already been prepared for Dhuliyan Circle by ignoring the seniority of the appellant/writ petitioner that should also be revised accordingly, in the light of the direction passed hereinabove. In view of the disposal of the appeal itself, no further order need be passed on the application for injunction which is deemed to be disposed of. The application for injunction being CAN 3761 of 2012 is thus, deemed to be disposed of. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the Learned advocate for the appellant immediately. Tapash Mookherjee, J. I agree.