Education Is Tool For Betterment Of Civil Institutions: Calcutta HC Directs Completion Of Appointment Of Over 14k Candidates As Assistant Teachers
The Calcutta High Court has directed the West Bengal School Service Commission to complete the appointment process of more than 14,000 candidates as Assistant Teachers in Government aided or sponsored schools.
The Court was deciding 36 appeals arising out of similar orders passed by the Single Judge in several writ petitions pertaining to the 1st State Level Selection Test, 2016 for recruitment of Assistant Teachers in (Upper Primary Except Physical and Work Education) in Government aided/Sponsored Schools (except hilly region) (in short, the 2016 SLST) initiated by a notification in September, 2016.
A Division Bench of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee observed, “While there may not be enough material to suggest that the school children have received no pedagogical guidance during these past years, it is a reasonable presumption that their education has suffered. There remains little doubt that education is a tool for the betterment of our civil institutions and paves the path to an informed and questioning citizenry. In the years since the inclusion of Article 21-A, it has been reiterated on numerous occasions that the right to education attaches to the individual as an inalienable human right.”
The Bench remarked that the candidates who have assailed the selection process, are vying for an equal opportunity to participate in a fair selection process which has been allegedly denied to them and wedged between these competing rights, the fundamental right to education of school children, has remained suspended in a state of limbo.
Senior Advocates Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Jayanta Mitra, Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Advocates Subir Sanyal, and Ashis Choudhury represented the appellants while AGP Supriyo Chattopadhyay and Senior Advocate Mukherjee represented the respondents.
In this case, the 2016 SLST was conducted in terms of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection for Appointment to the Posts of Teachers for Upper Primary Level of Schools), Rules, 2016. The interview list and merit list were published in August 2019 and October 2019 respectively. The said selection process was challenged in a bunch of analogous writ petitions which were finally decided in December 2020. By the said judgment, the entire selection process was set aside and the Commission was directed to hold a fresh selection process of all the candidates who were found to be eligible under Rule 12(2) of 2016 Rules and to proceed onwards from that stage. The Commission was also directed to verify the validity of the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) certificate, academic and professional qualifications etc. as provided under Rule 12 (3) of 2016 Rules.
A time frame was also stipulated towards conclusion of the verification process, publication of the interview lists, the merit lists, and the subsequent stages of constituting a panel including issuance of recommendation. Pursuantly, the Commission initiated the verification process and thereafter, by a notification, the interview list was published disclosing that the total number of final vacancies excluding 10% reserved for Para teachers was 14,339. Being aggrieved by the individual orders of the Single Judge, the appellants were before the Division Bench.
The High Court in the above regard said, “In the dispensation of justice, Courts are prevented from innovating at pleasure. Neither can they don the helmet of a ‘knight-errant, roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness’. At all times, Courts are expected to draw ‘inspiration from consecrated principles.’ [See Benjamin Cardozo, ‘The Nature of Judicial Process’]. Bearing such principle in mind, this Court cannot help but observe that there may arise certain situations which require untangling of a complicated mesh of competing rights; where the Court may be required to innovate, not at pleasure but within the realm of perennial common law, principles of equity and good conscience, so as to arrive at an equilibrium of rights i.e., find the best possible solution. Today, this Court finds itself in the midst of one of such situations. The selection of more than 14,000 candidates, is under challenge in the present proceedings. As a natural consequence thereof, their right to livelihood and right to freedom of choosing a profession of their choice, hang in the balance.”
The Court noted that since 2016, such inalienable human right has been held hostage by litigation over the propriety of the selection process of qualified school teachers i.e., the future of children which is often synonymised with the future of this country, has remained in a state of flux and uncertainty over the past eight years.
“In the said conspectus, whilst arriving at a final decision in the present appeal proceedings, this Court cannot be unmindful of the pressing need to conclude an already protracted litigation so as to inter alia, determine the rights of the appellants vis-à-vis the respondents and ensure that the children who find themselves in the proverbial eye of the storm, are able to realise their fundamental right to education to the fullest extent possible”, it added.
The Court observed that the unsuccessful candidates had again sought to frustrate the selection process since the results are not palatable to them and exercising the authority of judicial review, the Court cannot sit in appeal over such assessment and cannot convert judicial review proceedings into an inquisitorial one.
“Upon such re-evaluation initially 1463 (2 - for mismatch of class category + 559 - for mismatch of marks + 902 - for defaced OMR sheets) were excluded. Upon further revision and perusal of records of 902 candidates, 750 candidates were brought within the zone of consideration and accordingly, 1463 – 750 = 713 were ultimately excluded. Such exclusion is not sustainable in law and consequently the said candidates also come within the zone of consideration. As there are in total 14,339 vacancies there cannot be any hindrance towards inclusion of all the candidates called for PT being 14,052 candidates in the merit list as against 14,339 vacancies”, it further noted.
The Court held that the Commission had no jurisdiction to re-evaluate or recheck or scrutinize various aspects of each of the 14,052 candidates by an independent agency after completion of the PT and that such act is not sustainable in law.
“Accordingly, this Court directs the Commission to prepare and publish the final merit list and the panel in terms of Rule 12 (5) and Rule 12 (6) of the 2016 Rules respectively of the 14,052 candidates, in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from date”, it directed.
The Court also ordered that within a period of four weeks thereafter the Commission shall hold counselling and recommend all the 14,052 candidates, who appeared in the PT and upon such recommendation, the appointment letters shall be issued to the said candidates by the competent authority within a period of four weeks thereafter, in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the appeals and issued necessary directions.
Cause Title- Rajib Brahma and Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
