Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 910 (CAL)

Pratap Kumar Paria v. State of West Bengal

2016-11-23

C.S.KARNAN

body2016
C.S.Karnan, J. Despite of notice none appears for the respondents. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioners are registered in the Employment Office and their names sponsored by the Employment Office for appointment as Primary School Teachers under Paschim Midnapore District Primary School Council in 2006 as trained candidates. The petitioners also participated in the said selection process. The respondent council had directed to submit biodata in the said selection process from the petitioners and the same was submitted including 1 year training certificate. Admit card issued to the petitioners for a written examination dated 29.11.2009. Subsequently the result was declared in the year 2010 wherein the petitioners were not empanelled. Actually the petitioners were not awarded marks for one year training certificate. The petitioners are entitled to additional marks as per this earlier Court order in Tulsi Bakshi versus State of West Bengal dated 1.10.2008 which has been reported in 2008 (4) CLJ 789. If the marks are awarded for the 1 year training certificate then the petitioners would have been selected and their names were included in the empanelled list. 2. The petitioners additionally submit that the total marks for examination under 2002 Recruitment Rules for selection of Primary School Teacher was 100, out of which 22 marks were reserved for the training course certificate, 10 marks for the written test, 65 marks for academic qualification and 3 marks for Co-curricular activities. The petitioners were not awarded marks on training course certificate head and as such they contested against 78 marks. This Hon’ble Division Bench directed that the case of Tulsi Bakshi was a statement in 2006 and decided in the year 2006 stating that all such training qualification issued as PTTI Institute not recognized by N.C.T.E prior to 2006 are valid training certificates and such one year training certificates up to session 2005-2006 must be treated as valid certificates of training for awarding marks in 2001 training course. The said observation confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 3. The petitioners further submit that this Hon’ble Court had already directed the Paschim Midnapore district Primary School Council to award marks in favour of the petitioners therein in 2006, selection process against 1 year’s training certificate. The said observation confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 3. The petitioners further submit that this Hon’ble Court had already directed the Paschim Midnapore district Primary School Council to award marks in favour of the petitioners therein in 2006, selection process against 1 year’s training certificate. Similarly this Hon’ble Court passed an order in W.P. No. 10978 (W) of 2015 dated 4.6.2015, the same are confirmed by the Division Bench and the Divisional Bench directed the Education Department by awarding marks against training qualification for 1 year PTTI, as such if the candidates come within the panel of employment, they should be appointed and the candidates who got below the marks than the writ petitioners should vacate the seats to accommodate the writ petitioners. The order of the Division Bench directed the Commission of School Education regarding compliance of direction by way of giving appointment to the writ petitioners wherein the remaining proportionate members of employers from 2006 sanctioned process who got marks below the petitioners was confirmed by the Division Bench. 4. As such the petitioners are also entitled to get appointment as after the addition of marks in training qualification against 22 marks in 2006 selection process, the petitioners will be selected and include their names in panel and this cut off marks much above than the cut off marks of the last selected candidates. The appointments have been given by the respondent council with the approval of the 2nd respondent herein to Mr. Sunil Pal and others who got marks much above the last cut off marks by the appointed candidates. The petitioners are similarly selected candidates of 2006 in the selection process who have not been appointed due to non-addition of marks on account of 1 year PTTI training course qualification. The petitioners have approached the respondents to request them to add 1 year training qualification marks and appoint them as Primary Teachers like Mr. Sunil Pal and others being appointed but if was in vain, Hence the aggrieved petitioners filed the above writ petition. 5. On the side of the respondent counter statement has not been filed after serving a Court notice besides on behalf of the respondents no law officer entered appearance even after sufficient opportunities were afforded, hence this Court is constrained to pass a final order. 6. 5. On the side of the respondent counter statement has not been filed after serving a Court notice besides on behalf of the respondents no law officer entered appearance even after sufficient opportunities were afforded, hence this Court is constrained to pass a final order. 6. The highly competent counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioners have obtained 1 year training course in the year 2006. The 1 year training course is deemed to have been recognised as per this Court order passed in Tulsi Bakshi’s case versus State of West Bengal. The learned counsel further pointed out that one Mr. Sunil Pal and others have been also appointed as per the Court’s order in W.P. No. 10978 (W) of 2015. Similarly the petitioners are entitled to receive additional marks since they are eligible on the basis of 1 year training certificate course and similar to Mr. Sunil Pal. This issue regarding adding marks for 1 year training course has been confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court. 7. Pursuant to the judicial order petitioners are eligible to receive appointment orders from the respondents but the respondents have not considered the same after several requests made by the petitioner in person. As such the petitioners have been discriminated since they have not been treated equally to the same category of candidate, namely Mr. Sunil Pal. Further the petitioners are entitled to receive the relief as per the Recruitment Rules 2001. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusing the attached documents of the writ petition, this Court is of the view that one Mr. Sunil Pal and another filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 10578 (W) of 2015 before the Court. This Court allowed the above writ petition and directed the respondents to issue appointment orders, the same was carried out. As such the petitioners are also entitled to receive appointment orders from the respondents in the same way as Mr. Sunil Pal, hence this Court directs the 3rd and 4th respondent to furnish the current and future vacant positions to this Court on 21.12.2016 since the petitioners and Mr. Sunil Pal are covered under the same category. This court directs the Registry to post the above writ petition on 21.12.2016 under the heading to be mentioned. 9. Sunil Pal, hence this Court directs the 3rd and 4th respondent to furnish the current and future vacant positions to this Court on 21.12.2016 since the petitioners and Mr. Sunil Pal are covered under the same category. This court directs the Registry to post the above writ petition on 21.12.2016 under the heading to be mentioned. 9. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates appearing for the parties.