Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ruma Das & Ors vs The West Bengal Central School Service ... on 17 February, 2014
Author: Debasish Kar Gupta
Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta
1
17.02.2014.
srm
W.P. No. 1330 (W) of 2014
Ruma Das & Ors.
Versus
The West Bengal Central School Service Commission & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 709 (W) of 2014
Amit Kumar Singha
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 712 (W) of 2014
Soumen Das & Ors.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 715 (W) of 2014
Boby Naskar & Ors.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 714 (W) of 2014
Parul Mondal & Ors.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 737 (W) of 2014
Heru Chakraborty & Ors.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
2
W.P. No. 988 (W) of 2014
Kartick Kumar Digar & Ors.
Versus
The West Bengal Central School Service Commission & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 990 (W) of 2014
Abdus Satter Miah & Ors.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 991 (W) of 2014
Paramita Naskar & Ors.
Versus
The West Bengal Central School Service Commission & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 992 (W) of 2014
Lili Bera & Ors.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 993 (W) of 2014
Labanya Samanta & Ors.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 997 (W) of 2014
Ashurlekha Jantuya & Ors.
Versus
The West Bengal Central School Service Commission & Ors.
With
3
W.P. No. 1332 (W) of 2014
Bidisha Kundu & Ors.
Versus
The West Bengal Central School Service Commission & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 1333 (W) of 2014
Atashi Mondal & Ors.
Versus
The West Bengal Central School Service Commission & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 1335 (W) of 2014
Supriya Biswas & Ors.
Versus
The West Bengal Central School Service Commission & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 1337 (W) of 2014
Chitali Ghosh & Ors.
Versus
The West Bengal Central School Service Commission & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3112 (W) of 2014
Nani Gopal Karmakar
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 717 (W) of 2014
Chhabi Biswas & Ors.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Subrata Mukhopadhyay,
Mr. Soumen Biswas,
Ms. Daisy Basu,
Ms. Malabika Bhoumik,
4
Mr. Santanu Chatterjee,
Mr. Tapas Maity
...For the Petitioners in all Writ Applications.
Mr. Bimal Chatterjee, ld. Advocate General
Mr. Avijit Gangopadhyay,
Mr. K.K. Bandyopadhyay,
Ms. Supriya Dubey
...For the WBCSSC.
Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya,
Mr. Bidhan Biswas
...For the State in WP 1330(W)/2014.
Mr. Sadhan Roy Chowdhury,
Mr. Aniruddha Sen
...For the State in WP 712(W)/2014.
Mr. S.N. Bhattacharya,
Mr. Amritalal Chatterjee
...For the State in WP 715(W)/2014.
Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee,
Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee
...For the State in WP 714(W)/2014
& WP 737(W)/2014.
Mr. Sadananda Ganguly,
Mr. Debpratim Banerjee
...For the State in WP 991 (W)/2014 & WP 993(W)/2014.
Ms. Sipra Majumder,
Mr. Mirza Firoj Ahmed Begg
...For the State in WP 997(W)/2014.
Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee
Mr. Bikash Kumar Mukherjee
...For the State in WP 714(W)/2014.
In view of the submissions made by Mr. Subrata Mukhopadhyay,
learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners in W.P. No.1330 (W) of
2014, W.P. No.709 (W) of 2014, W.P. No.712 (W) of 2014, W.P. No.715 (W) of
2014, W.P. No.714 (W) of 2014, W.P. No.737 (W) of 2014, W.P. No.988 (W) of
2014, W.P. No.990 (W) of 2014, W.P. No.991 (W) of 2014, W.P. No.992 (W) of
5
2014, W.P. No.993 (W) of 2014, W.P. No.997 (W) of 2014, W.P. No.1332 (W) of
2014, W.P. No.1333 (W) of 2014, W.P. No.1335 (W) of 2014, W.P. No.1337 (W) of
2014, W.P. No.3112 (W) of 2014 and W.P. No.717 (W) of 2014, the issue involved
in these writ applications is common and/or same and as such these writ
applications are taken up for analogous hearing. Let it be recorded at the cost of
repetition that on the basis of the submissions made by Mr. Subrata
Mukhopadhyaya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners in
the aforesaid in the aforesaid writ applications before this Court on January 27,
2014, the ground for challenging the action of the respondent‐School Service
Commission has been restricted to non‐indication of status of the candidates (trained or untrained) in the Combined Merit Lists of 12th Regional Level Selection Test (AT), 2011 and allegedly violation of the orders dated February 7, 2013 read with April 8, 2013 passed in the matter of Tania Ghosh & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (In Re: W.P. No.1019 (W) of 2013 with CAN 3031 of 2013).
It is submitted by Mr. Subrata Mukhopdhyay, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, that no log report with regard to publication of the Combined Merit Lists or Final Panel cum Merit Lists is produced before this Court to substantiate the claim of the respondent‐School Service Commission that those were published in accordance with the 6 provisions of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2007 read with the orders dated February 7, 2013 and April 8, 2013 passed in the matter of Tania Ghosh & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (In Re: W.P. No.1019 (W) of 2013 with CAN 3031 of 2013).
It is further submitted by Mr. Subrata Mukhopadhyay that the information relating to uploading of the Combined Merit Lists and Final Panel cum Merit Lists were supplied to the Assistant Secretary to the West Bengal Central School Service Commission by the ITeS and Website Manager, West Bengal Central School Service Commission. It was not signed by the authorised person. Accordingly, Mr. Mukhopadhyay disputes that the above Lists were prepared or published by the authority in the website and other places on the basis of any decision of the competent authority of the respondent‐School Service Commission.
According to Mr. Mukhpadhyay, two merit lists were prepared by the respondent‐School Service Commission out of which one contained the names of all the candidates who had participated in interview in connection with the selection process under reference according to their respective merits. The other list contained the names of those candidates whose names had been recommended for appointment only. The latter one, according to Mr. 7 Mukhopadhyay, contained the identification of trained and untrained candidates while former one was not prepared in similar manner. It is further submitted by Mr. Mukhopadhyay that the latter one, i.e. "Final Panel cum Merit List" was not available in the official website of the respondent‐School Service Commission as disclosed to the public. Mr. Mukhopadhyay produces two sheets from two webpages to substantiate that the information in details containing the indication of trained or untrained candidates are available in the webpage described as westbengalssc.com/sscorg/wbssc/combinedMeritList12at/. But it was not available in the official website of the respondent‐School Service Commission, namely, westbengalssc.com/wbssc/combinedMeritList12at/.
It is also submitted by Mr. Mukhopadhyay that the petitioners in all these writ applications are in dark with regard to their fate in respect of the selection process under reference. According to Mr. Mukhopadhyay, details regarding trained and untrained were incorporated in the above webpage at a subsequent stage. According to him, this information in details as claimed by the respondent‐Schools Service Commission is available in the website subsequently but it was not available at the material point of time. In support of his submission Mr. Mukhopadhyay further produces a brochure to show that 8 the official website was shown as www.westbengalssc.com. Let the aforesaid three documents be kept on record.
It is submitted by the learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondent‐School Service Commission, that Combined Merit Lists were published by the respondent‐School Service Commission on September 25, 2013 containing merit‐wise information of all the candidates who had participated in the interview under reference. It is submitted by the learned Advocate General that the Final Panel cum Merit Lists in respect of the above selection process were also published on the same date containing the names of the candidates who had come within the zone of consideration for recommendation in accordance with the provisions of sub‐rule (6) of Rule 12 of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2007. According to the learned Advocate General, the above Final Panel cum Merit Lists contained the description of those candidates as trained or untrained in compliance of the order dated February 7, 2013 and April 8, 2013 passed in the matter of Tania Ghosh & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (In Re: W.P. No.1019 (W) of 2013 with CAN 3031 of 2013). According to the learned Advocate General, the above Final Panel cum Merit Lists were updated subsequently on two occasions in order to ascertain the names of the remaining candidates after conclusion of 1st phase of 9 recommendation. In support of his above submissions, the learned Advocate General produces the Combined Merit Lists as also the Final Panel cum Merit Lists and the communications received by the respondent‐School Service Commission from different zones as also from the ITeS and Website Manager. Let these records be kept on record.
It is also submitted by the learned Advocate General that the only difference in respect of the aforesaid two lists is that the former lists contained the merit wise position of all the candidates who had participated in the interview under reference and the latter lists contained the merit wise names of those candidates who had came to the zone of consideration for recommendation in accordance with the provisions of sub‐rule (6) of Rule 12 of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2007.
According to him, the latter one is the proof of compliance of the order passed in the aforesaid matter of Tania Ghosh & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (supra). Learned Advocate General further submits that two options, namely, "Submit" and "Details" were made available to the public in the official website of the respondent‐School Service Commission. After exercising the option "Submit" one would get the Combined Merit Lists of all the candidates who had participated in the interview. By exercising the option 10 "Details" the viewers would get only the Final Panel cum Merit Lists of those candidates who had come to the zone of consideration for recommendation, namely trained or untrained, under the above Rules.
The submission of Mr. Mukhopadhyay that the information in details were not available in the official website of the respondent‐School Service Commission is vehemently opposed by the learned Advocate General. The above submission is substantiated by him with the help of demonstration before the Court with Android version Samsung Mobile Phone in support of his above submission.
On instruction, learned Advocate General submits that there was no arbitrariness with regard to preparation of Final Panel cum Merit List in respect of the selection process under reference and in the event if there is any grievance with regard to the error committed in respect of a particular candidate at the instance of the respondent‐School Service Commission the same shall be considered properly. At the end of his submission, the learned Advocate General prays for filing affidavit‐in‐opposition to bring all the relevant materials and information on record.
I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and I have applied my mind for prima facie consideration of the decision 11 making of the respondent‐School Service Commission with regard to the selection process under reference.
Let affidavit‐in‐opposition be filed within four weeks; reply thereto, if any, be filed within one week thereafter. Liberty is given to the parties to mention the matter before appropriate Bench after expiry of the aforesaid periods.
Upon prima facie consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties on the balance of convenience and/or inconvenience for extension of the interim orders which have already been passed in these writ applications my observations are given below.
It is not in dispute that the Final Panel cum Merit Lists prepared by the respondent‐School Service Commission in accordance with the provisions of sub‐rule (6) of Rule 12 of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2007 read with the orders dated February 7, 2013 and April 8, 2013 passed in the matter of Tania Ghosh & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (In Re: W.P. No.1019 (W) of 2013 with CAN 3031 of 2013) are available in the official website of the respondent‐School Service Commission. It is not in dispute that the term "Merit Lists" mentioned in the above order purports the Merit Lists for recommendation and not any list for interview. No material is produced as yet 12 before this Court to show that the above details were not available on September 25, 2013 in the website.
I do not prima facie find it is necessary that any resolution of the competent authority or any document signed by the competent authority has to be produced before this Court to substantiate that it was available in the official website of the respondent‐School Service Commission on the date as claimed by the respondent‐School Service Commission or that the log report is required to be produced at the initial stage.
An attempt is made to distinguish the official website with another webpage but that pleading is not available in these writ applications.
After prima facie consideration of the aforesaid documents as also the website disclosed to the candidates in brochure under reference, I prima facie find that the Final Panel cum Merit Lists were published in the official website of the respondent‐School Service Commission and the webpage containing details of the candidates who had come to the zone of consideration were available in the above official website of the respondent‐School Service commission. Therefore, I do not prima facie find any substance in the submissions made by Mr. Mukhopadhyay that the petitioners in these writ applications are in dark with regard to their respective fate in respect of the selection process under reference because of prima facie satisfaction of the Court 13 that the informations in details were made available in the official website of the respondent‐School Service Commission.
In view of the above prima facie observations, the interim orders already passed in these matters are modified by passing an interim order afresh today to the effect that the respondent‐School Service Commission may recommend the names of selected candidates, provided there is no existence of restraining order of the Court in case of any particular recommendation. Those recommendations shall abide by the results of these cases. In the event further recommendations are made in respect of the selected candidates, it is to be indicated in those letters of recommendations that the same shall abide by the results of these cases and such recommendations shall not create any equity in favour of the recommended candidates.
Photostat plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the parties on usual undertakings.
( Debasish Kar Gupta, J. )