Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1041 (CAL)

Damodar Maity v. State of W. B.

2016-12-19

C.S.KARNAN

body2016
C. S. Karnan, J.: The short facts of the case are as follows:- 1. In this writ petition the petitioners are unemployed. They all are Madhyamik pass and all of them were registered with the Employment Exchange. 2. The petitioners have a common cause of action in the present petition and if separate petitions had to be filed same question of law and fact would have arisen and the petitioners have joined in one petition to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The testimonials of the petitioners i.e. Madhyamik pass certificate and Employment Exchange Card are annexed in the writ petition. 3. The petitioners have all participated in the selection process of 1993 initiated by Midnapur District Primary School Council as it was an undivided 4. District at that point of time. At that point of time Recruitment and Leave to Teachers in Primary School Rules of 1991 was in vogue. Total marks of selection for teachers was 100, out of which 65 academic, 20 training, 10 oral and 5 co-curricular activities. Some of the copies of the Admit Cards are annexed in the writ petition. 5. After the result was published there was massive irregularity which was apparent on the face of the record. A writ petition was filed by Susmita Bhowmick and others being W.P. No. 5137 (W) of 1996 challenging the said selection and finally the Hon’ble Justice Harish Tandon directed the Director of School Education to hold an enquiry as to the allegations made in the writ petition. The Director of School Education constituted one committee and the said committee held an enquiry upon inspection of records and submitted a report on 06.06.2012 before the Hon’ble High Court. Copy of the said report dated 06.06.2012 is annexed in the writ petition. 6. Requisition was initially sent on January 1987 to the Employment Exchange by the Primary School Council and a second requisition was sent on 07.08.1991. Total 40475 candidates recorded with the Employment Exchange till November 1992 were sponsored and in 1993 the panel was prepared and was approved by the D.S.E. All appointments made in 1993 was acknowledged by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 05.12.1995 due to corruption in selection process and a fresh panel was directed to be prepared from amongst the candidates already sponsored. 7. Total evaluation was reduced to 50 marks from 100 marks, academic qualification 25, oral interview 15, general impression 10. 8. 7. Total evaluation was reduced to 50 marks from 100 marks, academic qualification 25, oral interview 15, general impression 10. 8. Out of total 40475 sponsored candidates records relating to the candidates from Sl No. 12182 to 14778; 17365 to 18258; 33216 to 35348 and 39357 to 40429, total 6697 persons testimonials and records were not made available to the Inspecting Team of the Director. The panel was prepared under Recruitment Rule 1940 and not under 1991 Rule. 50% vacancies were filled up by trained persons but the persons who were declared trained were not holding the training qualification of Junior Basic Training or Primary Teachers Training. A good number of empanelled candidates both in trained and untrained were in 3rd Division in Matriculation and High marks were awarded to them to give them berth in the panel of successful candidates overstepping the high marks holder in the Madhyamik examination. 9. The records of one appointee Kamalendu Maity having Sl No. 118 call Letter No. 34852 could not be presented by the School Council. A large number of candidates about 56 were shown to have been sponsored as SC category candidates but no SC Certificate could be produced in support of their status as SC. The writ petition being W.P. No. 5137(W) of 1996 was finally disposed of by the Hon’ble Justice Harish Tandon on 14.12.2012 when his Lordship was pleased to hold inter alia that the recruitment is ex facie illegal as the Recruitment Rule of 1991 was supposed to be followed not the 1940 Rule. The persons sponsored in General category were included in the panel of SC category. 10. The trained persons have not been chosen from the Junior Basic Training or Primary Teachers Training but B.Ed./B.T. candidates have been given appointment as being trained which is illegal in as much as 1991 Recruitment Rule does not provide any room to treat B.Ed/B.T for training qualification for primary education. 11. The Hon’ble Justice Harish Tandon was pleased to quash the entire selection and directed that Denovo selection should be conducted under 1991 Rules and hence, the appointment made in favour of designated persons of the Council on the basis of the selection process initiated in 1993 was set aside. Copy of the said judgment of the Hon’ble Justice Harish Tandon is annexed in the writ petition. 12. Copy of the said judgment of the Hon’ble Justice Harish Tandon is annexed in the writ petition. 12. Any number of appeals were preferred Being MAT No.278 of 2013, FMA 3703 of 2013, MAT 967 of 2013 and FMA 3704 of 2013 against the said judgment dated 14.12.2012 passed in W.P. No. 5137 (W) of 1996 and the Division Bench of Hon’ble Justice Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya sitting with Hon’ble Justice Ishan Ch. Das were pleased to hear the appeal for several days and on 21.02.2014 their Lordships held inter alia as follows:- (a) The Recruitment Rule of 1940 since has been applied for recruitment of Primary School Teachers the same was validly done and 1991 does not apply. (b) So far as missing of the 6697 testimonials and particulars of candidates is concerned since the petitioners did not make out a case that such candidates were ultimately appointed the said omission may not be fatal in the context of the present case and accordingly the appeal was allowed. Copy of the said judgment of the Division Bench is annexed in this writ petition. 13. The petitioners state that out of 40475 candidates as sponsored by the Employment Exchange which were included by the petitioners herein. 6697 candidates’ testimonials have been lost from the office of the Council as they could not be produced before the inspection team. The petitioners have come to know from the office of the respondent council during April 29, 2015 that so far as the testimonials or particulars of the petitioners are concerned, the same are not available in the office of the respondent Council and the petitioners are the victims of non-availability of the testimonials or within the slot of 6697 candidates whose papers and documents could not be produced before the Inspecting Team. The petitioners have further reasons to believe that the petitioners were selected for appointment but due to missing of the papers and documents which was noted by the Director of School Education the petitioners have not been given appointments. 14. The petitioners have further reasons to believe that the petitioners were selected for appointment but due to missing of the papers and documents which was noted by the Director of School Education the petitioners have not been given appointments. 14. The petitioners state that they had no knowledge or information about missing of their answer scripts till April 2015, as for the first time the petitioners were informed by the member of the Council that out of 6697 missing slots the petitioners case also falls within the said group of missed documents and the petitioners could not be awarded any marks because their answer scripts and other testimonials were lost in respect of 1993 selection process and hence, the cause of action of the petitioners arose on that day i.e. April 29, 2015 in moving the present writ petition when the petitioner got the information about missing of their testimonials and answer scripts. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the arbitrary act on the part of the respondents by not giving appointments to the petitioners as above, the petitioners beg to move this Hon’ble Court. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that all the petitioners are registered in the name of the Employment Exchange. All the petitioners have participated in the selection process which was filed in the year 1993. The total marks for the selection of teachers was 100 which is consisting of academic training and co-curricular activities. After the selection process results was announced wherein there was a high irregularity that was committed. Hence the aggrieved candidates had filed a writ petition before the Court in the year 1996, the same was disposed of with a direction to the Director of School Education, and so long with the enquiry as to the allegations made in the writ petition. 16. The very competent counsel further submits that an enquiry committee was constituted, subsequently the report was submitted before this Court. Some of the sponsored candidates’ testimonials were not made available during the inspection. Actually the panel was prepared under the Recruitment Rules 1940 instead of under Rule 1991. Further the mode of selection from trained candidates and untrained candidates was not properly considered for mode of selection. Many of the general category candidates have been appointed in the place of scheduled caste category candidates. Actually the panel was prepared under the Recruitment Rules 1940 instead of under Rule 1991. Further the mode of selection from trained candidates and untrained candidates was not properly considered for mode of selection. Many of the general category candidates have been appointed in the place of scheduled caste category candidates. This Hon’ble Court after well considering the report submitted by the enquiry committee, the selection committee had found that the selection process was illegal, since the respondents have not followed the Recruitment Rules of 1991. 17. The learned counsel further submits that the trained candidates have not been chosen from the Junior Basic Training Category. However, the candidates possessing B.Ed/BT qualifications have been given appointments and treated as trained candidates, as such the entire selection process becomes defunct, besides running against this Court judgment passed in W.P. No.5137 (W) of 1996. About 6697 candidates’ testimonials were missing it also proves that there were high irregularities in the said selection process. Hence the learned counsel entreats the Court to provide appointments to the petitioners herein. 18. On the side of the respondents no one was examined. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusing the annexed documents, the view of this Court that the same issue had already been decided by the Hon’ble Court in W.P. No. 5137 (W) of 1996. Subsequently the same was decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench. As such the writ petition becomes infructuous. Accordingly this W.P. No.12487(W) of 2015 along with CAN applications are dismissed. 20. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates appearing for the parties.