http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

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) 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:                       J U D G M E N T M.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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

    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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

    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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

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.