Calcutta High Court: In a writ petition challenging an order dated 05-12-2018 issued by the Commissioner of School Education (respondent 2) where the petitioner, a member of the ‘Rajbanshi’ community, was denied appointment to the post of primary school teacher under the Scheduled Caste Exempted category as part of the Recruitment Process of primary school teachers in 2006, a single-judge bench comprising of Rajarshi Bharadwaj,* J., based on the principles of substantial justice, held that the petitioner should not be deprived of appointment on the purported expiration of the panel.
Factual Matrix
The petitioner held a Schedule Caste certificate and belonged to the ‘Rajbanshi’ community. The District Magistrate of Jalpaiguri forwarded petitioner’s name along with 125 other candidates to the Director of Employment Exchange in February 2006. During the selection process, a proceeding for the cancellation of the land loser certificate was initiated against the petitioner. A list for the recruitment of primary teachers was prepared, but petitioner’s name was excluded.
The petitioner moved a writ petition in 2007, and as an interim measure, the court allowed him to participate in the recruitment process. The petitioner’s name appeared in a draft panel under the Exempted Unreserved category instead of the Schedule Caste Exempted category. Petitioner’s appointment was rejected, and he filed a writ petition in 2018 challenging the same. The case also involved the alleged lack of action on the part of the District Primary School Council, Jalpaiguri (respondent 3) regarding the issuance of an appointment letter to the petitioner.
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner contended that his appointment had been wrongly withheld by the Commissioner of School Education. It was contended that the petitioner’s marks in the written examination exceeded the lowest cut-off for the Bengali medium Exempted Schedule Caste Category. It was contended that there were discrepancies in the attendance records, and the petitioner was wrongly considered an absent candidate. The petitioner’s name was placed in the wrong category in the draft panel. The petitioner also contended that the delay in appointment was due to the termination of the panel, and therefore, should not have been a ground for denial for appointment.
Court’s Observation
The Court noted that the petitioner’s appointment had been wrongfully withheld, and he had secured more marks than the lowest cutoff for the Schedule Caste Exempted category. The Court stated that administrative errors, including misidentification of the petitioner, and incorrect marking of his attendance, led to his erroneous categorization and these errors were apparent. The Court held that the denial of appointment was arbitrary and unsubstantiated as the delay in appointment due to the expiration of the panel should not be a ground for denial.
“When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in the injustice being done, because of non-deliberate delay.”
While citing Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, where the Supreme Court held that “Mere empanelment cannot give rise to a vested legal right for a candidate to seek appointment in the post for which a merit list or select list is published. But in the event there is arbitrary or mala fide departure from a select list to deprive a candidate from being appointed, then on this limited ground in my opinion the Court can interfere and scrutinize the action of an appointing authority.”
The Court opined that candidates should not be denied appointments unless there were valid, justifiable reasons. The Court ordered a re-assessment of the petitioner’s eligibility on the basis of obtaining more marks than the lowest cut-off marks and directed the competent authority to recommend the petitioner for appointment if found eligible.
Court’s Decision
The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner and quashed the Commissioner of School Education’s order dated 05-12-2018. The Court directed the Commissioner of School Education to reconsider the recruitment process and assess petitioner’s eligibility based on existing recruitment rules. The petitioner was to be given an opportunity to be heard, produce relevant documents, and, if found eligible, be recommended for appointment in a school.
[[Utpal Roy v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 3790, order dated 19-10-2023]]
*Judgment by Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Rabilal Maitra and Mr. Rajit Lal Maitra, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Ratul Biswas and Mr. Kaushik Chowdhury, Counsel for the WBBPE