Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Moumita Paul vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 14 July, 2023
Author: Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
Bench: Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
14.07.2023
Item No.13
RP
Ct. No.7
WPA 2898 of 2021
Moumita Paul
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Tapas Kumar Dey
Ms. Susmita Mondal
Mr. Rakesh Roy
Mr. Argha Bhattacharya
... for Petitioner
Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra
Ms. Supriya Dubey
... for WBCSSC
1.The petitioner claims that Sk. Nasiruddin, Sreetama Roy and Sanjay Mondal, who have secured less mark than that of the petitioner were called on to participate in the counselling process conducted by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission for recruitment of Assistant Teachers of Higher Secondary Schools (Class XI and XII) in connection with 1st SLST (AT), 2016.
2. This Court by an order dated March 21, 2023 directed the School Service Commission to file an affidavit to the supplementary affidavit affirmed on 24th August, 2022 with regard to the allegations made by the petitioner.
3. Pursuant to the said order the report in the form of an affidavit has been filed on June 19, 2023. It appears from annexure R-1 at page 6 of the affidavit that the marks obtained by the petitioner 2 excluding the personality test was 76 and after including the marks of personality test her marks was 82.50. The petitioner was placed in the waitlist in General-Female category under serial no.36. It further appears from the said annexure that the last recommended candidate in the waiting list under General-Male/Female category was WMF1- 57 and the last recommended candidate got a total marks of 80. The marks of last such candidate in the waiting list under General-Female category was WF1-27 with total marks of 83.33. It was further indicated in the said annexure that Sk. Nasiruddin obtained 77 marks before personality test and his total marks was 80 including the personality test. He was placed in the waiting list under serial no.WMF1-57 in the General-Male/Female category. It was further indicated in the said annexure that Sritama Ray obtained 77 marks before the personality test and her total marks was 82 including the personality test. It was further submitted that Sreetama Ray was placed in the waiting list under serial no.47 in General- Male/Female category and in serial no.45 in General-Female category. Sanjay Mandal obtained 77 marks before personality test and his total marks was 81.33 after including the personality test. Sanjay Mandal was included in the waiting 3 list under serial no.51 in the General-Male/Female category and in serial no.26 in OBC-B Male/Female category.
4. Dr. Patra representing the School Service Commission sought to interpret sub-rule 6 of Rule 12 by submitting that after evaluation of OMR sheet or the answer sheet of written examination the Commission prepared and published the result in its website with all details of the candidates to be called for the personality test (interview list category wise on the basis of merit i.e. marks of written test, academic and professional qualification). He submits that after evaluation of OMR sheet the list of candidates to the called for the personality test was prepared and on the basis of the marks the petitioner was placed in the General-Female category whereas Sk. Nasiruddin was placed in the waitlist under serial no.WMF1-57; Sreetama Ray was placed in the waiting list under serial no.47 in the General-Male/Female category; Sanjay Mandal was placed in the waiting list under serial no.51 in the General-Male/Female category and under serial no.26 in OBC-B Male/Female category.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that though Sreetama Ray was placed in the waiting list under category General-Male/Female as well as in the General-Female category whereas the petitioner 4 was placed only under General-Female category. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner ought to have been also placed in the category of General- Male/Female category. To such submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner Dr. Patra submits that the last cut-off marks obtained prior to the personality test under General-Male/Female category was 77 and, therefore, since the petitioner secured less than 77 marks prior to the personality test she was not considered in the General- Male/Female category. The panel is to be prepared by the School Service Commission in accordance with the provisions laid down under Rule 12 of the West Bengal School Service Commission after selection for appointment to the post of teachers for Class XI and XII in Higher Secondary Schools) Rules 2016 (in short "2016 Rules"). Dr. Patra contends that the panel was published in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12 of 2016 Rules, which is, however, disputed by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner.
6. After hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that for the purpose of arriving at a decision Rule 12, more particularly, sub-rules 6 and 7 thereof has to be interpreted.
5
7. Learned advocate for the petitioner refers to an order passed on an application filed in connection with WPA 5406 of 2022 on 29th September, 2022.
8. After going through the said order, this Court finds that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the said order dated 29th September, 2022 recorded that the petitioner in the said writ petition should not be deprived of for no fault of her own but for the wrong interpretation of Rule 12(6) and 12(7) of the 2016 Rules. Dr. Parta, however, submits that an appeal, being MAT No.199 of 2023, has been preferred against the said order dated 29th September, 2022 and the said appeal is still pending. Since the issue involved in this writ petition relates to interpretation of sub-rules 6 and 7 of Rule 12 and the Hon'ble Division Bench is in seisin over such issue, this Court is of the considered view that it would be fit and proper that this writ petition be tagged along with the said appeal, being Mat 199 of 2023 to be heard along with the said appeal.
9. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition stands released from the list of this Court.
10. Let the records of this writ petition be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for assigning this writ petition before the Hon'ble Division to be heard along MAT 199 of 2023.
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) 6