PETITIONER:
PASCHIMBANGA PRATHAMIK SIKSHAK SIKSHANPRAPTS BAKAR-O-SIKSHAK
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
PRESIDENT, WEST BENGAL PRIMARY SCHOOL COUNCIL & ORS.(WITH CI
DATE OF JUDGMENT05/12/1995
BENCH:
MUKHERJEE M.K. (J)
AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (7) 333 JT 1995 (9) 275
1995 SCALE (6)829
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENTM.K. MUKHERJEE, J. 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.