Paschimbanga
Prathamik Sikshak Sikshanprapts Bakar-O-Siksha Vs. President, West Bengal Primary School Council & Ors [1995] INSC 794 (5 December 1995)
Mukherjee
M.K. (J) Mukherjee M.K. (J) Agrawal, S.C.
(J) M.K. Mukherjee, J.
CITATION:
1996 SCC (7) 333 JT 1995 (9) 275 1995 SCALE (6)829
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
I.A.No.8
of 1994 in S.L.P. (C) No.14944 of 1994 The application is allowed. The
applicant-respondent No. 5 be transposed as petitioner No.6. Office will amend
the cause title of the petition accordingly. S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8911-12/94 with
S.L.P.(C) No.14944/94
Special
leave granted.
These
appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated March 30, 1994 rendered by the Calcutta High Court
disposing of a number of Letters Patent Appeals and Writ Petitions. Facts
relevant for disposal of the appeals are as under.
In
1983 two writ petitions were filed in the High Court by the appellants herein
on behalf of and at the instance of a large number of applicants seeking
appointments as Assistant Teachers in different primary schools of West Bengal, being run and managed by District
Primary School Boards/Councils within their respective territories. They
contended that though they had the requisite educational qualifications and
basic trainings for such appointments the Boards/Councils were preparing panels
and giving appointments to untrained applicants and persons of their own choice
in utter disregard of the Rules framed and circulars issued in that behalf. A
learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions by a judgment
dated September 28, 1989 with a finding that the appointment of untrained
candidates as Assistant Teachers in the primary schools was unauthorised and
illegal and a direction that the respondents should appoint only trained candidates
in the recognised primary schools in the different districts of the State
against existing vacancies.
Assailing
the above judgment of the learned Single Judge the respondents preferred a
Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court which was
disposed of on May 10,
1991 with the
following directions:
"Accordingly,
taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, I direct the
different District School Boards and the concerned authorities to take
immediate steps for preparation of fresh panels in accordance with law and in
terms of the Rules referred to above.
I
further direct that all appointments against the additional posts sanctioned by
the State Govt. from time to time due to enhancement in the roll strength in
the existing schools in different districts be filled up by the trained
candidates only. So far as the normal vacancies existing in the schools are
concerned, at least 50% must be filled up by trained candidates only. In
respect of remaining 50% of such vacancies, untrained candidates should be
considered along with trained candidates on some rational and reasonable
principle." Against the above judgment and order the appellants moved this
Court by filing Special Leave Petitions which were disposed of on September 30, 1991 with the following observations and
directions:
"There
are certain rules which relate to selection of teachers. The Division Bench of
the High Court has dealt with the manner and procedure of the selection. Taking
note of the fact that there are a good number of vacancies existing and rules
have been made prescribing the process to be followed, the Court has laid down
that the 50% of the normal vacancies should be filled up by the trained
teachers and all additional vacancies should go to them and the remainder of
the 50% of the normal vacancies could be filled by trained and untrained
teachers. In a part of its decision the Division Bench has indicated what
actually is meant by the term `rational and reasonable number'. We gather that
in terms of the directions of the Division Bench, panels have now been drawn
up. We are of the view that, if and when, the panels are under challenge it
should be open to the aggrieved parties to take their definite stand one way or
the other depending upon the facts of the case, but the general guidelines
given by the High Court do not require to be disturbed." On a
clarification sought of the above order this Court made the following order on April 27, 1992:
"if
the are any panels drawn which are inconsistent with the directions dated May
10, 1991 of the Division Bench of the High Court and if any appointments are
made from such inconsistent panels, it will be open for the petitioners to
challenge the same before the High Court." Thereafter some of the appellants
herein again moved a writ petition before a learned Judge of the High Court
alleging that the respondents were preparing panels and giving appointments in
utter disregard of the earlier order of the Division Bench of the High Court
dated May 10, 1991 as affirmed by the Supreme Court and contrary to the Rules
framed and circulars issued in that behalf and prayed for cancellation of the
panels so prepared and illegal appointments given. On that petition an interim
order was made on September 24, 1992 to the effect that the district
authorities should prepare panels in accordance with the order of the Division
Bench dated May 10, 1991 after giving an opportunity to all the members of the
writ petitions to appear before the Interview Board. An interim injunction retraining
the respondents from issuing any appointment letter was also passed. Similar
interim orders were issued on other writ petitions filed on behalf of the
applicants.
Against
the interim orders passed on some of those petitions, the respondents filed
Letters Patent Appeals before a Division Bench of the High Court and obtained
their stay. In course of hearing of one of those matters the Division Bench
felt that the appeals as also all the connected writ petitions should be heard
together and ordered accordingly.
In
course of the hearing of the matters it having been brought to the notice of
the Division Bench that the panels were being prepared in utter breach of the
directions given by the earlier Division Bench of the High Court in its order
dated May 10, 1991 and the extant Rules and Circulars and that the legitimate
claims and aspirations of the trained teachers were being ignored, the Bench
appointed two special officers to submit an illustrative inspection report
about the preparation of panels of two of the Districts, namely, Midnapur and Howrah.
On perusal of the reports submitted by the two officers the Division Bench
found that there were gross irregularities in regard to the preparation of
panel so far as Midnapur District was concerned (some of the instances of such
irregularity have been detailed in the impugned judgment). On such finding the
Bench gave the following directions:- "As regards District Midnapore, it
has been submitted that the Director, School Education (primary) has already granted
his approval in the matter and as such, question of reopening the same does not
and cannot arise. We are, however, not inclined to accept this contention as
advanced by Mr. Bhuiya appearing for the Midnapore School Council. This Court
the irregularities as noted in the report of the Special Officers. The
approval, if any cannot thus be sustained and the same, therefore, is set aside
and cancelled. The Director of School Education (Primary) is directed to
consider the matter afresh and it is hereby ordered accordingly. This
reconsideration of the matter by the Director shall be effected having due
regard to the report of the Special Officers and in the event the Director is
of the view that the report of the Special Officers and the instances mentioned
therein require further consideration, he would do so and recast the panel
accordingly. This order is passed upon consideration of the fact that this
Court ought not to usurp the power of the Director in the matter of grant of
approval. The Director is to act strictly in accordance with law having due
regard to the provisions of law and the judgment of this Court in the earlier
matter as noted above." (emphasis supplied) In respect of the panel
prepared for the District of Howrah the Bench observed that it could not be
said to be that irregular though certain instances has been brought to its
light; but the irregularities did not constitute a major problem for the
purpose of giving effect to the panel. The Bench however directed the Director
of School Education (Primary) to consider the observations of the Special
Officers and proceed to grant approval to the appointments in terms of the
panels upon proper verification of the anomalies as pointed out by the special
officers. The Court further stated as under:
"Be
it recorded here that we are not trying to assess the suitability of the
candidates, but the irregularities cannot be obliterated. We have been given to
understand during the course of hearing that the Director of School Education
(Primary) has already given his approval in regard to the panel, but in cun
view, the matter ought to be examined for further in the light of the report of
the Special Officers and the Director of School Education (Primary) should
recast the canal, if there be any, and if the Director considers the same to be
an anomaly at all." (emphasis supplied) As regards the other Districts the
Court had this to say:
"As
regards the other Districts, we do not have any basic material before us so as
to declare the selection process as irregular, but considering the experiences
of the two Districts, we direct that the Director of School Education (Primary)
should also consider the matter in regard to the grant of approval to the panes
prepared by the Council and pass orders in accordance with law having due
regard to the judgment of this Court as noted above." The above judgment
of the Division Bench is under challenge in these appeals at the instance of
the appellants and their grievance is that having found that there were gross
irregularities in the preparation of the panels for the District of Midnapur,
the Division Bench ought to have quashed the panel and issued directions for
preparation of fresh panel instead of recasting only. They further contended
that irregularities of similar magnitude were committed in respect of all the
districts wherever panels were prepared and appointments given, including the
District of Howrah and, therefore, all such panels were required to be quashed
and fresh panels prepared in accordance with law, keeping in view the Rules and
Circulars relating to the appointment of primary teachers and the earlier
Division Bench judgment of the High Court dated May 10, 1991 above.
After
the special leave petitions, out of which the instant appeals arise, were filed
this Court passed the following order on February 17, 1995:
"The
matter was considered by the High Court specially in the context of two
districts, namely, Midnapore and Howrah and certain irregularities were found
by the High Court in the matter of preparation of panel for these two districts
on the basis of reports of Special Officers appointed by the High Court to
undertake inspection of examination sheets and the relevant records relating to
the selection. No such inspection was undertaken by the High Court in respect
of other districts. Since irregularities in the matter of selection are alleged
to have been committed in other districts also, we consider it appropriate that
a sample inspection be made with regard to the selections that have been made
in rest of the districts other than Midnapure and Howrah. We, therefore, direct the District
Judge of the concerned district to nominate two experienced advocates practising
in his Court as Special Officers to conduct a sample inspection of the relevant
record relating to selection and preparation of panel for appointment of
Assistant Teachers in that district. The sample inspection should be
based-based to cover the various circles in the district. The report of the
Special Officers after the said inspection may be forwarded to this Court by
the District Judge concerned within four weeks from the date of the receipt of
this order. The President, West-Bengal Primary School Council, (respondent NO.
1) as well as the Direction of School Education (Primary), (respondent No. 4)
are directed to make available the relevant records to the concerned District
Judge for the purpose of completing the inspection as directed by this Court.
List
after six weeks." By subsequent orders this sample inspection was limited
to panels prepared for the districts of Malda, Cooch Behar, Birbhum, Hooghly, Purulia and Burdwan. In compliance
with the above direction the learned Advocates nominated by the District Judges
have submitted their respective reports.
With
the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties we have carefully gone
through the reports regarding the preparation of the panels of the districts
referred to above. Our such exercise persuades us to hold that except in the
District of Malda there has not been any large scale illegalities or
irregularities in the preparation of panels so as to entitle us to quash the
same altogether. The same cannot be said, however, in respect of the District
of Malda as we find that all norms of fair play and adherence to rules have
been given a go-bye in preparing the panel. So far as the district of Midnapur
is concerned we have already noticed that the High Court has found gross
irregularities in preparing the same and we find no reason to differ from the
view expressed by the learned Judges. It is, of course, true that except in the
above two Districts, namely, Malda and Midnapur there are some instances of
irregularities in the preparation of the panels for the other districts
aforementioned but considering the number of candidates who were called for
interview it cannot be said that irregularities of such a magnitude that the
entire panel should be held to bad. But, keeping in view the nature of the
irregularities and the illegalities committed in preparation of the panels in
the District of Malda and Midnapur we feel that the mere recasting of the
panels, as directed by the High Court in respect of the panel of Midnapur would
not meet the ends of justice and the legitimate aspirations of the bonafide and
deserving candidates. We, therefore, quash the panels for recruitment to the
post of primary school teachers in the District of Malda and Midnapur and
direct and respective Boards/Councils to prepare fresh panels in accordance
with law, keeping in view the directions of the High Court in its earlier
judgment dated May 10,
1991 and give
appointments from those panels only. As the applicants, at whose instance the
writ petitions were filed in the High Court by their societies, which
ultimately gave also to the present appeals, have had been ventilating their
legitimate grievances for a number of years it is just and desirable that they
should not be debarred from being considered for appointment solely on the
ground that they have crossed the age bar provided under the Rules,
Notifications or Circulars, as the case may be.
Needless
to say, that this direction of ours is to be complied with while preparing the
initial panels in terms of this order and not subsequent panels. Since the
matter is long pending the panels should be prepared within a period of six
months from today. Any appointments already made from the panels of the above
two districts may be continued on the clear understanding that such
appointments shall stand terminated on corresponding appointments being made
from the fresh panels unless, of course, such appointees also qualify to be impanelled
therein. As regards the other concerned districts we, however, make it clear
that the directions given by the High Court in the impugned judgment for being
complied with before giving appointment from the panel prepared for the
district of Howrah, will also apply to them and in complying with the above
directions the respondents shall keep in view the observations and findings of
the Special Officers appointed by this Court.
Before
we part with this judgment we wish to place on record that in course of the
hearing of these appeals a grievance was raised on behalf of the appellants
that some appointments have been made even from outside the panels and that
directions may be issued annulling those appointments.
We are
unable to entertain the above grievance as it was not raised, may agitate their
such grievance in the appropriate forum.
The
appeals are thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
I.A.
Nos.22-23 of 1995 in S.L.P.(C) No. 8911-12 of 1994 Since the connected appeals
have been disposed of no order need be passed on these applications which also
stand disposed of.
Back