Reply To: Appointment of Primary Teachers by DPSCs


@Joy tumi case no ta kotha theke peyachho. 2009 er sange er kono relation nai. Case details ta niche dilam.

Author: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya


The Hon’ble Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
The Hon’ble Justice Tapash Mookherjee

M.A.T. 127 of 2014
CAN 2088 of 2014

The West Bengal Board of Primary Education & Anr.
Sri Dibakar Bera & Ors.

For the Appellants : Mr. Subir Sanyal,
Mr. Ratul Biswas.

For the Writ Petitioner/ : Mr. S. P. Pahari.
Respondent No.1
For the State-Respondents : Mr. Tushar Sinha Mahapatra.

For the Respondent No.4 : Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya, Mr. Anindya Bhattacharya.

Judgement On : 19-08-2014.

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. : This mandamus appeal is directed against the judgement and/or order passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court on 2nd January, 2014 in W.P.No. 38348(W) of 2013 whereby liberty was given to the writ petitioner to make a further representation to the concerned authorities being the respondent nos. 2 and 4 therein for allowing him to be interviewed for the purpose of empanelment for the post of Assistant Teacher in any primary school under the Council with a rider that in case such a representation is submitted by the writ petitioner, the concerned authority will take interview of the writ petitioner and if necessary will amend the panel by adding his name if he is found to be qualified in the interview and comes within the zone of consideration for such appointment after taking into consideration the marks obtained by him in the said interview together with the marks obtained by him in the selection test held earlier.

The West Bengal Board of Primary Education and its President who were the respondent nos. 2 and 4 in the said writ petition are the appellants before us. They have filed the instant mandamus appeal challenging the said order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court on 2nd January, 2014 in W.P. 38348(W) of 2013.

It is alleged by the appellants that the appellants could not appear before the Learned Trial Judge due to insufficient notice served upon them. It is further alleged that the notice relating to hearing of the said writ petition was served upon the appellants on the very same day when the writ petition was disposed of. As a result, the appellants could not represent themselves before the Learned Trial Judge.

It is further alleged by the appellants that the recruitment process has already been concluded. As such, presently there is no scope for giving the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 herein any appointment even if he is allowed to be interviewed and comes out successfully therein.

It is further alleged by the appellants that having regard to the fact that the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 admittedly failed to report on the scheduled date within the fixed time intimating his intention to participate in the interview, he was rightly shown by the Interview Board as absent on the same date and he was not rightly allowed to be interviewed on the said date by the Interview Board.

The appellants thus claimed that since the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 did not participate in the interview, he became disqualified from being considered for such appointment in the post of primary teacher even though he was otherwise eligible and passed the TET Examination.

We have considered the pleadings made out by the writ petitioner in the writ petition itself. We find that the writ petitioner admitted therein that he could not report on the interview date by 9.30 a.m. which was the reporting time for him as per the Website Publication. The Interview Notification, which was displayed through Website concerning the writ petitioner, is annexed to the writ petition being annexure “P-7” at page 37 of the writ petition wherefrom we find that the date of interview for the petitioner was fixed on 15th December, 2013. The venue where such interview will be taken was also mentioned in the said Interview Notification. Reporting time was also mentioned in the said Notification.

We find that 9.30 a.m. was the time fixed for reporting so far as the writ petitioner was concerned. The writ petitioner has stated in the writ petition that on the very same day i.e. on 15th December, 2013, he reached the interview venue at about 11.30 a.m. He further stated in the writ petition that he was not allowed to report as he could not report within the reporting time fixed for him.

In view of the admitted position that the writ petitioner could not report by offering himself for appearing in the interview within the reporting time i.e. at 9.30 a.m. on the date of interview i.e. on 15th December, 2013, we do not find any illegality on the part of the selection authority for not allowing the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 to participate in the interview on the said date.

Thus we hold that in view of the provision contained in Rule 8(6) of the extant Recruitment Rules, the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 disqualifies himself from being considered for selection for the concerned post as he failed to appear in the interview.

As such, we hold that the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 cannot be interviewed any further after completion of the selection process. Thus we cannot agree with the ultimate conclusion which was drawn by His Lordship in the impugned order passed on 2nd January, 2014. The impugned order thus stands set aside.

The appeal is thus allowed.

Re: CAN 2088 of 2014 (Stay) In view of disposal of the appeal in the manner as aforesaid, no further order need be passed on the stay application. The stay application being CAN 2088 of 2014 is thus deemed to be disposed of.