Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 901 (CAL)

Swapan Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal

2016-11-22

SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. According to the petitioners they were appointed by the respondent Council in the post of Assistant Teacher of primary school. It has been claimed that a panel was prepared for the post of Head Teacher and names of the petitioners were included in the panel but no appointment letter was given in spite of available vacancy under Behala (West) Circle. The petitioners have alleged that all the empanelled candidates got their appointment except Behala (West) Circle. The said action of the respondent authority has been challenged by the writ petitioners in the present writ petition. When this writ petition was entertained by an Order dated 5th June, 2015 this Court considered the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the State and he was directed to produce the panel before this Court. It was also submitted before this Court that the empanelled candidates including the petitioners would get top priority in the available vacancies. 2. It has been further submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that counseling was started on 19th September, 2014 and the petitioners were allowed to attend the counseling but despite such counseling no appointment was given although vacancies were available as on that date. 3. Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, learned Counsel appearing for the Kolkata District Primary School Council submitted a panel of Head Teachers which is called as provisional panel for the post of Head Teacher-2016. 4. On perusal of the said panel it appears that the petitioner no.1, Swapan Chakraborty, has been placed under Serial No. 4, petitioner no. 2, Sharmistha Banerjee, petitioner no.2, has been placed under Serial No.3, petitioner no.3, Sipra Dutta, has been placed under Serial No.1, petitioner no.4, Nilima Dey Ghosh, has been placed under Serial No.2 and petitioner no.5, Sudipta Chakraborty, has been placed under Serial No.5. 5. Mr. Bari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed Primary Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2001. Rule 17 deals with appointment of Head Teachers. This rule says that the Council shall appoint head teachers 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 says about the preparation of panel. Rule 18 says about the preparation of panel. It says 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. It has been further mentioned that if due to circumstances beyond the control of the Council, any teacher from the aforesaid panel is not appointed against the vacancies for that year, the panel shall continue in the following year in so far as such teacher is concerned and the name of such teacher may be placed at the top of the panel to be prepared in the following year. 6. For abundant caution as to the question of validity of the panel Mr. Bari has cited a decision in the case of Purushottam Vs. Chairman, M.S.E.B. and another reported in (1999) 6 Supreme Court Case 49. In the said decision the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the question of life of a panel and in the event the expiry of such panel where a particular candidate who was empanelled for being appointed, could not be appointed due to some other reasons, whether he should be given preference for appointment, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that if a candidate was duly selected and was entitled to be appointed to the post but for the illegal decision of the screening committee he could not be appointed, his right cannot be frustrated on the ground that the life of the panel has expired. 7. Mr. Bari has also relied upon a decision in the case of Kaushik Mallick Vs. West Benal College Service Commission and others reported in 2010(4) CHN (CAL) 69. Referring to the said decision it has been submitted by Mr. Bari that even if the panel expired the petitioners are entitled to be appointed particularly in view of the fact that the rule says that even after expiry of the panel and if the empanelled candidates were not appointed in a particular year in the available vacancies they should be placed in the panel to be prepared for the following year. In the present case, there is no dispute that the petitioners have already been empanelled and have already indicated herein above of their placement in the panel. In the present case, there is no dispute that the petitioners have already been empanelled and have already indicated herein above of their placement in the panel. Since such panel is still alive there is no doubt that the authority will take step to appoint Head Teachers from the said panel keeping in view of their position in the panel. Mr. Vaisya has submitted that vacancies are available where the petitioners can be accommodated. 8. Having heard the parties and considering the submissions made on behalf of the Kolkata District Primary School Council this writ petition is disposed of by directing the said Council to give appointment to the petitioners as Head Teacher from the panel as mentioned herein above according to their position in the said panel before 31st December, 2016. 9. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of. 10. In view of disposal of the writ petition, the interim order stands vacated.