Calcutta High Court: In two writ petitions with identical issues related to the selection process conducted by the Midnapore District Primary School Council in 1996 for appointing primary teachers reserved for scheduled caste candidates, a single-judge bench comprising of Aniruddha Roy,* J., found that the petitioners were disqualified as they could not prove their participation in the selection process for the Primary Teachers’ post and there is no irregularity in the decision-making of the Jurisdictional Chairman of the Primary School Council.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the present writ petitions is challenging the selection process in 1996, where the Council appointed general category candidates instead of scheduled caste candidates. The initial challenge to the panel in 1991 led to a Division Bench directing the preparation of a fresh panel in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court, in 1995, quashed the 1993 panel, directing the preparation of a fresh panel within six months. In 1996, a fresh panel was prepared, allegedly replicating the earlier quashed panel, with unqualified candidates given preference over the petitioners. The present two writ petitions were filed challenging the fresh panel’s legality. Both writ petitions are heard together due to similar issues and legal points. Parties agreed to proceed primarily based on records of the second writ petition.
Judicial Directions and Developments
-
In 2007, a coordinate bench ordered an inquiry committee to examine illegality claims. The Director of School Education was to recast the panel if needed.
-
In 2012, an interim order directed an inquiry into illegalities, leading to a report in 2012 identifying 56 unreserved candidates appointed for scheduled caste posts.
-
In 2014, a writ petition (W.P. No. 25584 (W) of 2014) was filed, and in 2015, another writ petition (W.P. No. 26537 (W) of 2014) was disposed of, directing compliance with the 2014 Division Bench order.
-
In 2016, the Paschim Midnapore District Council issued a memo canceling 12 appointments, directing an inquiry.
-
In 2016, another writ petition led to a directive for the Directorate of School Education to dispose of representations.
-
In 2017, the Directorate of School Education terminated 12 appointments and directed the recasting of the panel.
-
An appeal against the 2017 order was dismissed in 2017.
-
In 2018, a representation was made to implement the 2017 decision, leading to a writ petition in 2019.
-
In 2019, the writ petition was disposed of, directing termination of illegal appointments and recasting the panel.
-
Following the direction, the District Councils issued appointment letters in 2020 for 12 posts, leading to the current writ petitions by petitioners claiming appointments for the remaining 44 posts.
Moot Point
The second writ petition seeks appointments for 44 posts, while the first writ petition seeks various reliefs, including cancellation of an order, age relaxation, compensation, and certiorari.
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioners argued that the Directorate’s 2017 decision has not been fully implemented, and appointments for the remaining 44 posts are pending. The Paschim Midnapore District Council contended that the petitioners failed to produce documents proving their participation in the 1996 selection process. The Paschim Midnapore District Council argued that both writ petitions lack merit, as the petitioners did not participate in the 1996 selection process.
Court’s Observation
The Court noted that the reliefs claimed in both writ petitions were interlinked, centering around the appointment for the vacant 44 positions of Primary Teachers. The Court highlighted the directions in the 10-08-2017 decision, which involved terminating the services of 12 teachers, reconstituting the panel, and accommodating the petitioners in the Schedule Caste Category. It was noted that termination of services for the mentioned 12 teachers had occurred, and the candidates who provided necessary documents were appointed, with the panel’ approval on 29-09-2021. The Court further noted that the primary issue arose from the petitioners’ alleged failure to produce relevant documents during verification, as claimed by the District Primary School Council.
The Court observed that the Chairman of the Council stated that the petitioners failed to produce documents proving their participation in the 1996 recruitment process. The petitioners, in their reply, chose not to deny the Council’s claim but offered an evasive denial. The Court observed that the Directorate’s decision dated 10-08-2017 was duly implemented, with termination of services and appointment of qualified candidates.
Emphasizing the principle that empanelment alone does not confer a right to employment, the Court stated that without issued appointment letters, no employment right is established. The Court concluded that the Directorate’s direction was correctly carried out, and the petitioners failed to qualify under the laid-down tests during the verification process.
Referring to a Division Bench’s judgment on 30-06-2023, the Court noted that similar issues were raised in appeals, all of which were dismissed, emphasizing that most appellants did not demonstrate locus standi and had not appeared for interviews. The Court held that the issue raised in the writ petitions had already been completely adjudicated, and there was nothing further to adjudicate.
The Court found that the Directorate’s direction was fully complied with, and there was no need for additional compliance. The Court concluded that the writ petitions lacked merit, and no relief could be granted to the petitioners.
Court’s Decision
Both writ petitions, WPA 23735 of 2019 and WPA 18250 of 2021, were dismissed without any order as to costs. All connected interlocutory applications were disposed of.
[Chittaranjan Bhunia v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 4867, order dated 06-12-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Aniruddha Roy
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Arunava Banerjee, Sk. Qareeb, Ms. Ritika Mondal, Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya, Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh, Mr. Kamal Mishra, Mr. Aurobinda Chatterjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ranjan Saha, Counsel for the Respondent/State
