Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 925 (CAL)

Tanwir Alam v. State of West Bengal

2016-11-25

C.S.KARNAN

body2016
C.S. Karnan, J : The short facts of the case are as follows : 1. The petitioners submit that they are not entitled with their concerned Employment Officer and all the petitioners are possessing the required educational qualification besides they are trained candidates. The 6th petitioner is a physically handicapped candidate. All the petitioners were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and forwarded their names to the District Primary School Council, Hooghly, for the purpose of recruitment as Primary School Teachers during the year 2006. All the petitioners have submitted their testimonials including Teachers Training Certificate. Actualy preference is to be given to the trained candidates, all the trained candidates had studied in the Urdu Medium at Nalikul Primary Teacher Training Institute, the said school has been recognized by the National Council for Teachers Education. The petitioners further submit that as per the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules 2001, it has been provided that for the purpose of recruitment of Primary School Teachers priority and preference will be given to candidates having trained from a recognised institute and non-trained candidates will be appointed when trained candidates are not available. Accordingly names of the petitioners were sponsored by the Employment Exchange along with other trained candidates giving them preference on the strength of their training qualification. As per Rule 9, the biodata was submitted by the sponsored candidates, the School Council shall compute their marks in the score sheet to be prepared for the purpose of such selection and the credit of the marks were to be given and computed on the basis of economic qualification training, Co-curricular and the written test. The petitioners additionally added that for the teacher training candidates 22 marks were allotted to the certificate holders, accordingly the petitioners were awarded marks on the basis of academic qualification and co-curricular activities as the case may be. The petitioners were not awarded marks, further all the petitioners had participated in the written test on the basis of the ratio 1:5. After the written test was over the petitioners were not empanelled since the marks was not awarded to them, however they are entitled to receive 22 marks being trained candidates. As per this Hon’ble Court judgment passed in Tulsi Bakshi and another versus State of West Bengal and others passed in W.P. NO.4107(W) of 2006. The non-awarding marks on the petitioners is not appropriate. As per this Hon’ble Court judgment passed in Tulsi Bakshi and another versus State of West Bengal and others passed in W.P. NO.4107(W) of 2006. The non-awarding marks on the petitioners is not appropriate. The petitioners had studied the training course with recognized Institutes and affiliated to the National Council for Teachers Education, all the candidates have obtained their training course certificates before June, 2005, therefore, all the said candidates are eligible to receive 22 marks. The 6th respondent herein had been appointed as a teacher after awarding marks since he belongs to the same category as the petitioners. Therefore, the delay of employment is bad in law. The 2nd respondent herein has filed an affidavit and opposed the writ petition. The respondent submits that all the petitioners cannot jointly file a single writ petition in accordance with the cause of action. The petitioners 1,2,3,4 and 6 pursued their course, the Institute was not recognized by the National Council for Teachers Education during the relevant period. Therefore, the petitions cannot claim award marks as per the Hon’ble Court judgment, hence the petitioners’ claim is not maintainable, therefore the respondent herein prays for dismiss the above writ petition. 2. The highly competent counsel Mr. A.K. Nath appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have obtained their Teacher Training Course Certificate on or before June, 2005. As such they are entitled to receive 22 marks as per the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules 2001. The National Council for Teaches Recruitment Rules 2001. The national Council for Teachers Education Act came into force from August 2005. Before the said period all the said petitioners had obtained their training course certificates. As per the Supreme Court judgment those who have obtained Teachers Training Certificate prior to the NCTE Act came into force which is valid for implementation in order to avoid the 22 marks. Out of 6 writ petitioners 5 writ petitioners are belonging the minority community by religion. As per Article 30 of the Constitution, the minority candidates shall be protected and uplifted by way of providing every employment opportunity. So far no Government Servants who are in the 6 writ petitioners’ family. Out of 6 writ petitioners 5 writ petitioners are belonging the minority community by religion. As per Article 30 of the Constitution, the minority candidates shall be protected and uplifted by way of providing every employment opportunity. So far no Government Servants who are in the 6 writ petitioners’ family. All the families of the petitioners all living below the poverty line, hence the very competent counsel makes a deep request to direct the respondents to provide appointment to the petitioners after awarding 22 marks since they are Teachers Training Certificate holders. 3. The learned counsel Mr. Kamaluddin, appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that all the petitioners have jointly filed the above writ petition which is not maintainable since all are individuals. The petitioners 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 have obtained the Teachers Training Certificate from the non-recognized Institute with the NCTE. To that effect the learned counsel has annexed a list of recognized Training Institutes. As per the list the Institutes where the petitioners studied are not recognized with NCTE. Therefore, the petitioners training certificate are invalid. Therefore all the petitioners are not entitle to receive award marks as per Rules 2001. As such the writ petition is not possessing any valid grounds for recognition. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the Institution where the petitioners had studied, their training course which has been recognized by the NCTE for Teachers Education with effect from 27.5.2009 as per the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent herein. All the petitioners had studied in the Urdu Medium Primary School which comes under the minority institution. However the said institution is now recognized by the NCTE and affiliated to the Board of West Bengal, there the said institutes is a quality institute, as such the training certificate obtained by the petitioners are valid and fit for execution. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the annexed documents from all sides, the petitioners had obtained Teacher Training Course Certificate on or before 2005 from the concerned institution, the same was recognized by the NCTE for Teachers Education with effect from 27.9.2009. However, the petitioners have obtained Teaches Training Certificates before the recognized institute. However, the petitioners have obtained Teaches Training Certificates before the recognized institute. In the instant case the same Teachers, the same Institute and the same syllabus and besides the same number of working days prevailed. Hence, the petitioners trained certificate are valid, as such the petitioners are entitled to receive 22 marks in the capacity of trained eligible candidates, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to receive appointment orders from the respondents having adhere to all the required norms, besides all the petitioners are nearly in the age-bar position and could be eliminated for further appointments if neglected. All the writ petitioners have struggled for seeking employment for around 11 years after obtaining their eligibility. Hence, the Court directs the 2nd respondent herein to furnish current and near future vacancy positions on 15.12.2016 without fail. 5. The Court directs the Registry to post the above case under the caption of Partly-Heard-Case on 15.12.2016 without fail. 6. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates appearing for the parties.