Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Amina Khatun vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 12 April, 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
W.P. No. 23994 (W) of 2015
Amina Khatun
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 24001 (W) of 2015
Jasmin Begum
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 30239 (W) of 2015
Md. Jamil Akhter
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 30242 (W) of 2015
Abusayed Ali
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 30254 (W) of 2015
Rabindra Nath Yadav
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 30255 (W) of 2015
Nilesh Gandhi
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 30256 (W) of 2015
Md. Ruhul Amin
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 30257 (W) of 2015
Md. Mahaboob Alam
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 30258 (W) of 2015
Chandan Sharma
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 30259 (W) of 2015
Md. Nazrul Islam
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 30260 (W) of 2015
Mithu Chowdhury (Das)
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 30261 (W) of 2015
Pravin Kr. Singh
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 30263 (W) of 2015
Tanweer Alam
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 30264 (W) of 2015
Md. Jawid Akhter
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 30266 (W) of 2015
Washim Bari Chowdhury
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 30338 (W) of 2015
Dipali Bera
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 30340 (W) of 2015
Pintu Kr. Mondal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 30341 (W) of 2015
Md. Anzar Alam
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 30343 (W) of 2015
Mukesh Kr. Singh
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 30346 (W) of 2015
Mukesh Kr. Yadav
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 30347 (W) of 2015
Md. Khurshid Anwar
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 30349 (W) of 2015
Shaban Yasmin
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 30350 (W) of 2015
Md. Ghulam Mustafa
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 29085 (W) of 2015
Md. Khalid Sarwar
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 29090 (W) of 2015
Md. Noor Islam
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 29091 (W) of 2015
Md. Nazrul Bari
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 29092 (W) of 2015
Md. Tarique Anwar
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 29093 (W) of 2015
Ms. Shampa Mitra
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 29094 (W) of 2015
Md. Sharful Haque Rizwan
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 29098 (W) of 2015
Md. Tanwir Alam
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 29103 (W) of 2015
Nasim Ahmed
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 29105 (W) of 2015
Md. Nurul Huda
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28409 (W) of 2015
Manik Debsarma
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28410 (W) of 2015
Jaya Roy
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28411 (W) of 2015
Samiruddin Ali
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28412 (W) of 2015
Anwesha Choudhury
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28413 (W) of 2015
Nazrina Sultana
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28415 (W) of 2015
Minakshi Mahanta
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28416 (W) of 2015
Mousumi Pal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28417 (W) of 2015
Dilara Begum
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28418 (W) of 2015
Moumita Roy Chaudhury
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28419 (W) of 2015
Meghnad Doloi
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28421 (W) of 2015
Nargis Khatun
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28900 (W) of 2015
Tumpa Chatterjee
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28901 (W) of 2015
Aditi Chaki
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28903 (W) of 2015
Ajitabha Mondal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28904 (W) of 2015
Pradip Kr. Saha
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28906 (W) of 2015
Kallol Pal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28908 (W) of 2015
Rajkumar Mondal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28910 (W) of 2015
Aijuddin Shaikh
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28913 (W) of 2015
Krishnendu Acharjee
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28915 (W) of 2015
Pradip Roy
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28917 (W) of 2015
Biplab Kr. Mondal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28920 (W) of 2015
Farida Khan
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28921 (W) of 2015
Krishna Chatterjee
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28922 (W) of 2015
Koyel Roy
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28924 (W) of 2015
Shyamal Gupta
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28925 (W) of 2015
Prasanta Mondal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
W.P. No. 27971 (W) of 2015
Ganesh Rajak
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27972 (W) of 2015
Anjali Sarkar (Pramanik)
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27993 (W) of 2015
Sadekul Islam
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27975 (W) of 2015
Rabiul Haque
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27966 (W) of 2015
Sukumar Mudi
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27967 (W) of 2015
Md. Abdur Rakib
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27756 (W) of 2015
Sk. Rejaul Karim
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27757 (W) of 2015
Md. Minhaj
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27758 (W) of 2015
Md. Asraful Hoque
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27759 (W) of 2015
Md. Akhtarul Islam
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27761 (W) of 2015
Md. Sahidullah Biswas
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27762 (W) of 2015
Subhankar Das
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27766 (W) of 2015
Sampa Ghosh
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27767 (W) of 2015
Dipankar Das
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27768 (W) of 2015
Madhumita Ghosh Mukherjee
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27769 (W) of 2015
Moumita Shaha (Ghatak)
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27770 (W) of 2015
Md. Farooque
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27771 (W) of 2015
Debasree Das
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27772 (W) of 2015
Jagannath Mitra
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27895 (W) of 2015
Tanusri Maiti
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27896 (W) of 2015
Soma Dutta
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27897 (W) of 2015
Sabnam Banu
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27898 (W) of 2015
Amarnath Tandan
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27899 (W) of 2015
Arun Pahan
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27900 (W) of 2015
Bandana Ash
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27969 (W) of 2015
Abhishek Mondal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27970 (W) of 2015
Lutfur Rahaman
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 30236 (W) of 2015
Soma Dutta
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 30237 (W) of 2015
Sarfunnesa Khatun
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27974 (W) of 2015
Sarjamin Mondal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 29095 (W) of 2015
Md. Shamim Iquebal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 30345 (W) of 2015
Abaidul Hoque
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 216 (W) of 2015
Sk. Samsuddin
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 217 (W) of 2015
Renu Khatun
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 6820 (W) of 2015
Shashanka Mondal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 6821 (W) of 2015
Anamika Mondal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 6822 (W) of 2015
Alimul Hoque
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 6823 (W) of 2015
Apurba Das
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 6824 (W) of 2015
Arun Kr. Kotal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 6825 (W) of 2015
Tapan Kr. Hazra
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 6826 (W) of 2015
Prahlad Datta
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 30101 (W) of 2015
Reshmi Das
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28126 (W) of 2015
Mitali Mondal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28822 (W) of 2015
Ayesha Siddique
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 27731 (W) of 2015
Mousumi Das
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28189 (W) of 2015
Ujjwal Kr. Mahato
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28191 (W) of 2015
Bikash Ch. Mahato
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28193 (W) of 2015
Bimala Soren
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28195 (W) of 2015
Arakendu Mahato
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28197 (W) of 2015
Md. Murttaza Ansari
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28199 (W) of 2015
Basanti Mahato
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28200 (W) of 2015
Mourani Mahato
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28202 (W) of 2015
Mira Mahato
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28204 (W) of 2015
Pashupati Mahato
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28205 (W) of 2015
Mandira Kumar
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28207 (W) of 2015
Shanta Mahato
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28208 (W) of 2015
Pritilata Kumar
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28783 (W) of 2015
Hemanta Kr. Mahato
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28785 (W) of 2015
Sindhu Kuiry
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28788 (W) of 2015
Trilochan Hembram
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28790 (W) of 2015
Tusfa Rani Murmu
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28791 (W) of 2015
Pratim Kuiry
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28793 (W) of 2015
Bipasha Mahato
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28798 (W) of 2015
Rajib Sarkar
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28800 (W) of 2015
Dipti Mahanty
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28802 (W) of 2015
Pradipta Majhi
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28804 (W) of 2015
Dayabati Majhi
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28806 (W) of 2015
Somnath Banerjee
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 29915 (W) of 2015
Akshay Ch. Gorai
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 29916 (W) of 2015
Goutam Gorai
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 29917 (W) of 2015
Anima Mahato
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 29923 (W) of 2015
Asit Sing Mura
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 29924 (W) of 2015
Somnath Mondal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 29925 (W) of 2015
Kamalika Bhandari
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 29941 (W) of 2015
Siddhartha Sankar Mondal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28692 (W) of 2015
Madhuita Pal Giri
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28691 (W) of 2015
Kabita Das
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 27902 (W) of 2015
Vivekananda Sardar & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 27228 (W) of 2015
Dipak Saha & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28066 (W) of 2015
Seuli Bera & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 27229 (W) of 2015
Mobiul Korim & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 27227 (W) of 2015
Manoj Kumar Agarwal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 29704 (W) of 2015
Sujata De
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 29703 (W) of 2015
Sumanta Nandi
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 26525 (W) of 2015
Goutam Mal & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 26526 (W) of 2015
Promankur Adhikar & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 26527 (W) of 2015
Srabani Ghosh
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 26528 (W) of 2015
Golam Murtaza & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 26571 (W) of 2015
Md. Derajuddin Mollick & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 26573 (W) of 2015
Jikat Ali & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 26574 (W) of 2015
Masum Reja
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 26576 (W) of 2015
Rofikul Sk. & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28809 (W) of 2015
Ranu Banerjee
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28812 (W) of 2015
Lipika Roy
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28814 (W) of 2015
Manoj Kr. Mondal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 28816 (W) of 2015
Soma Mukherjee
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 29911 (W) of 2015
Kanika Ruidas
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 29912 (W) of 2015
Nilima Mahato
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 29913 (W) of 2015
Namita Das Shasmal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. 29914 (W) of 2015
Durga Rani Mahato
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 1582 (W) of 2015
Pranita Rath (Bhunia)
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 1898 (W) of 2016
Prasenjit Sarkar
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 1038 (W) of 2015
Debashree Bose
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 1701 (W) of 2015
Anima Das (Singha) & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 1703 (W) of 2015
Shampa Mokhal & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 1385 (W) of 2015
Sefali Mahato
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28115 (W) of 2015
Dora Kau & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27979 (W) of 2016
Mousumi Mahato
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27763 (W) of 2015
Somen Mandal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27764 (W) of 2015
Palash Mondal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 2169 (W) of 2016
Kingsuk Majumder
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 1882 (W) of 2016
Rina Mukherjee & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 2380 (W) of 2016
Abdul Latif
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3046 (W) of 2016
Mustari Parveen
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3047 (W) of 2016
Snigdha Roy
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3048 (W) of 2016
Mamtaj Yeasmin
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3735 (W) of 2016
Radharani Mandal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3736 (W) of 2016
Prabir Kumar Layek
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3737 (W) of 2016
Asim Kabi
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3744 (W) of 2016
Kabita Layek
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3746 (W) of 2016
Kartik Chandra Mukhuti
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3748 (W) of 2016
Ajoy Kumar Besra
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3750 (W) of 2016
Avijit Chattopadhyay
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3752 (W) of 2016
Jagannath Paul
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3753 (W) of 2016
Ajoy Kumar Saha
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3754 (W) of 2016
Parima Ch. Roy
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3756 (W) of 2016
Surjadeb Mukherjee
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3758 (W) of 2016
Sk. Jahir Ahammad
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3760 (W) of 2016
Surajit Roy
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3761 (W) of 2016
Partha Mukherjee
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3763 (W) of 2016
Prasun Sanyal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3765 (W) of 2016
Ritwik Ghosh
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3768 (W) of 2016
Rahena Sultana
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3769 (W) of 2016
Manjura Begum
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3770 (W) of 2016
Somenath Mondal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3772 (W) of 2016
Nawsad Ali
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3773 (W) of 2016
Ramesh Mondal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3776 (W) of 2016
Tridib Biswas
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3777 (W) of 2016
Arup Kumar De
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3778 (W) of 2016
Sumana Ghosh
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3780 (W) of 2016
Khodadil Haque
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3782 (W) of 2016
Santwana Hazra (Chatterjee)
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3790 (W) of 2016
Md. Farajuddin Ahammed
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3791 (W) of 2016
Swapan Majumder
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3656 (W) of 2016
Krishna Pada Ghosh
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3660 (W) of 2016
Sandip Kumar De
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3664 (W) of 2016
Nurul Islam Mallick
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3666 (W) of 2016
Bapi Hembrom
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3668 (W) of 2016
Kailash Chandra Kuiri
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3670 (W) of 2016
Kamala Kanta Mandi
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3684 (W) of 2016
Mahadeb Rajak
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3686 (W) of 2016
Mahitosh Layek
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3687 (W) of 2016
Tilottama Dey
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3688 (W) of 2016
Aswini Mahato
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3689 (W) of 2016
Nirmal Prasad Sabar
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3693 (W) of 2016
Mitali Choudhury (Gorai)
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3694 (W) of 2016
Kalyani Kumar
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3697 (W) of 2016
Sutapa Mahato
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3704 (W) of 2016
Angshuman Mahato
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3706 (W) of 2016
Banka Bihari Saren
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3710 (W) of 2016
Gobardhan Murmu
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3711 (W) of 2016
Chunaran Tudu
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3712 (W) of 2016
Manoj Kumar Patra
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3713 (W) of 2016
Chitra Gantait (Sarkar)
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3714 (W) of 2016
Sukdeb Sardar
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27924 (W) of 2015
Dolan Das
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 11256 (W) of 2011
Kalyan Das
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 10713 (W) of 2011
Dinabandhu Pramanik
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 4809 (W) of 2012
Ratan Samanta
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 26109 (W) of 2015
Biswajit Adhikary
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 26620 (W) of 2015
Tumpa Sarkar
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27100 (W) of 2015
Santosh Kr. Paramanick
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27104 (W) of 2015
Saroj Hossain Khandakar
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27105 (W) of 2015
Soumitra Kr. Roy
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27107 (W) of 2015
Srijib Sarkar
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27109 (W) of 2015
Arpita Sahoo
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27919 (W) of 2015
Bamapada Mondal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27920 (W) of 2015
Bandana Mondal Jalal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27921 (W) of 2015
Sushmi Chatterjee (Banerjee)
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27922 (W) of 2015
Trinanka Chakraborty
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27923 (W) of 2015
Ratna Ghosh
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27925 (W) of 2015
Jaiup Rahaman
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27926 (W) of 2015
Tanusree Roy
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27927 (W) of 2015
Tanmoy Biswas
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27928 (W) of 2015
Asima Roy
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27929 (W) of 2015
Mithu Saha
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27930 (W) of 2015
Pijush Dey
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27931 (W) of 2015
Soma Kar
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 27932 (W) of 2015
Aditi Guha Roy
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28517 (W) of 2015
Aliur Rahaman
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28519 (W) of 2015
Biswajit Sen
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 29693 (W) of 2015
Jhumur Das Roy
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 29692 (W) of 2015
Rita Sardar
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 29993 (W) of 2015
Kalidas Hansda
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 29994 (W) of 2015
Nilima Kora
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 39 (W) of 2016
Ruma Das
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 2659 (W) of 2016
Uma Rani Maity @ Uma Rani Bera
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 2661 (W) of 2016
Kabita Manna
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28736 (W) of 2015
Sanchita Dasgupta
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 4272 (W) of 2015
Kakali Maity
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28112 (W) of 2015
Sudipta Chakraborty
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28113 (W) of 2015
Samasri Karar @ Das
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28114 (W) of 2015
Rupa Chatterjee Nee Mukherjee
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 30310 (W) of 2015
Purnendu Chanda
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 30309 (W) of 2015
Palash Parichha
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 30306 (W) of 2015
Dibyendu Panda
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 4239 (W) of 2016
Shrabani Sanbigrahi
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 4240 (W) of 2016
Jhumur Pal Jana
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 4245 (W) of 2016
Sadhana Mondal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 4248 (W) of 2016
Suraj Jana
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 4249 (W) of 2016
Nandan Kr. Pal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 4252 (W) of 2016
Barnali Seth
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 2016
Rumpa Samanta
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 4261 (W) of 2016
Anil Pramanik
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 4263 (W) of 2016
Namita Smanata
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 4264 (W) of 2016
Sephali Majee
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 4266 (W) of 2016
Aprita Maity
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 4267 (W) of 2016
Chandana Jana
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 4269 (W) of 2016
Arabinda Maity
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 4271 (W) of 2016
Sutapa Kar
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28116 (W) of 2015
Nandita Maiti (Das)
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3654 (W) of 2016
Shantimoy Dutta
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3701 (W) of 2016
Keya Nandy
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3662 (W) of 2016
Pranabesh Banerjee
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 3658 (W) of 2016
Madhusudan Nayek
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
W.P. No. 28420 (W) of 2015
Hasina Banu
Vs
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Hearing concluded on : April 5, 2016
Judgment on : April 12, 2016
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-
These 284 specially assigned writ petitions involve similar issues.
They have been taken up for hearing analogously.
The petitioners had completed primary teachers training course
for the academic session prior to 2005-2006. The petitioners had
participated in the selection process for the appointment of primary
teachers for the year 2006. The petitioners claim that, they should be
considered as trained candidates and be awarded appropriate marks in
terms of the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules,
2001 for the training undertaken by them. They also claim that the
training undertaken by them is valid. The petitioners were not awarded
marks as trained candidates in the selection process. Hence, by these
writ petitions they have questioned the action of the authorities in not
awarding the requisite marks for the training obtained by them.
According to the petitioners, the issue of award of marks for
training now stands settled. The issue with regard to the validity of the
training certificate was in question in a public interest litigation filed by
way of a writ petition. Such writ petition was disposed of by a judgment
and order dated October 1, 2008 reported at 2008 Volume 4 Calcutta
High Court Notes page 789 (Tulsi Baksi & Anr. v. State of West
Bengal & Ors.).
It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that, in Tulsi
Baksi & Anr. (supra) the validity of training certificates issued by
Teacher Training Institutes for the academic session 2005-2006 was in
question. The training certificates issued by the Teachers Training
Institutes were found to be invalid. The declaration of invalidity was
limited to the academic session 2005-2006. The certificates issued by
such training institutes prior to 2005-2006 were not declared to be
invalid. Consequently, the certificates issued by the training institutes
for the period prior to 2005-2006 have to be treated as valid.
Appropriate marks have to be given to the candidates holding such
certificates for training in terms of the Recruitment Rules, 2001. The
Recruitment Rules, 2001 provides for award of marks for training. The
petitioners have been denied such marks in the selection process. The
petitioners have been unfairly treated in the selection process.
It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that, the fact
that Tulsi Baksi & Anr. (supra) relates to 2005-2006 academic
session only would appear from the judgment itself. Moreover, such
position has been explained in at least three Division Bench decisions.
One of them is reported at 2010 Volume 2 Calcutta Law Journal
page 69 (Hiranmoy Bhowmik & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal &
Ors.), the two others are MAT 124 of 2011 (Arpita Roy (Samanta) v.
State of West Bengal & Ors.) and MAT No. 1268 of 2010 (Sampa
Prodhan v. State of West Bengal & Ors.).
The institutes and the State had preferred Special Leave Petitions
against Tulsi Baksi & Anr. (supra) as well as Hiranmoy Bhowmik &
Ors. (supra). In such Special Leave Petitions few of the petitioners
herein had sought to intervene. Few of the petitioners were parties. All
the Special Leave Petitions directed against Tulsi Baksi & Anr. (supra)
as also Hiranmoy Bhowmik & Ors. (supra) were disposed of by an
order dated August 19, 2015 without interfering with Tulsi Baksi &
Anr. (supra) and Hiranmoy Bhowmik & Ors. (supra). According to
the petitioners, Tulsi Baksi & Anr. (supra) and Hiranmoy Bhowmik
& Ors. (supra) have attained finality. The certificates issued by the
training institutes for the academic year 2005-2006 only have been
held to be invalid. All other certificates issued by such training
institutes for other periods prior thereto are valid.
Learned Additional Advocate General opposing the writ petitions
has submitted that, the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs as
prayed for. The Recruitment Rules, 2001 was amended in 2005. The
amendment of 2005 governs the present cases. In 2006 the District
Primary School Councils undertook a selection process for the purpose
of appointment of primary teachers. However, due to the pendency of
Tulsi Baksi & Anr. (supra) and the interim order dated March 3, 2003
passed therein the 2006 selection process could not be proceeded with
for a considerable period of time. Thereafter, the State had clubbed the
2009 vacancies with the 2006 vacancies. This clubbing together was
found to be invalid. By an interim order dated March 23, 2009 passed
in a writ petition the High Court had directed segregation of the 2009
vacancies from the 2006 vacancies. Such interim order was made
absolute on December 24, 2009.
Referring to Tulsi Baksi & Anr. (supra) it has been submitted by
the learned Additional Advocate General that, it had upheld the
challenge to the validity of the certificates issued by the training
institutes. The judgment is dated October 1, 2008. On and from
October 21, 2008, a person obtaining a training certificate from such
institute covered by Tulsi Baksi & Anr. (supra) is not entitled to
additional marks. The State authorities thereafter had proceeded to
continue with the 2006 selection process on the basis that, the
certificates issued by the training institutes were not valid in terms of
Tulsi Baksi & Anr. (supra). The written test for the 2006 selection
process was held in November and December 2009. Appointments were
given in 2010. All vacancies of 2006 have subsequently been filled up.
Therefore, today even if a Court directs that the petitioners before the
Court should be given appointment, there are no available vacancies for
the 2006 to which the petitioners can be accommodated. In such
perspective the writ petitions have become infructuous.
Learned Additional Advocate General has referred to the judgment
and order dated June 29, 2010 passed in W.P. No. 2580 (W) of 2010
(Tumpa Roy v. State of West Bengal & Ors.). He has referred to the
directions contained in Tumpa Roy (Supra) to the effect that the State
has to frame a scheme. He has also referred to a similar directions
issued by the Court in W.P. No. 14589 (W) of 2010 (Sampa Prodhan
v. State of West Bengal & Ors.).
Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that, the
National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) has subsequently
changed the eligibility criteria for appointment of teachers on August
23, 2010. The State Government has made requisite amendments in
the Recruitment Rules, 2001 in 2012 to make the Recruitment Rules,
2001 to be in conformity with the changed NCTE eligibility criteria. The
petitioners do not have such eligibility criteria. Therefore, none of
petitioners can be considered for the fresh vacancies.
Learned Advocates for the District Primary School Councils have
adopted the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General.
Would the candidates participating in the 2006 selection process
and holding a training certificate from a training institute for a period
prior to 2005-2006 academic session be considered as a trained
candidate and be awarded requisite marks therefor in terms of the then
Recruitment Rules, 2001 is the issue falling for consideration in these
writ petitions.
Various District Primary School Councils had undertaken a
selection process for appointment of primary teachers in 2006. The
petitioners had participated in such selection process for 2006.
The relevant Recruitment Rules, 2001 obtaining for the 2006
recruitment process is as follows:-
"6(2). The educational qualifications for the post of a
teachers shall be -
(a) School Final/Madhyamik pass under the West
Bengal Board of Secondary Education or
equivalent, or
(b) Erstwhile Higher Secondary pass (XI class)
under the West Bengal Board of Secondary
Education or equivalent, or"
"6(3). Training qualification may not be compulsory for
appointment or compassionate ground against the vacancies
prescribed under clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of rule 8."
"6(5). No extra marks shall be given for higher academic
qualifications at the time of selection of a teacher:
Provided that a trained candidate shall be given extra
marks in the manner prescribed under clause (d) of sub-rule
(2) of rule 9."
"9(2)(d). The percentage of marks to the total full marks
obtained in Junior Basic Training certificate/Primary Teachers'
Training certificate Examination or equivalent shall be
computed as percentage of 22(twenty two) and recorded in the
score sheet;"
The petitioners claim to have obtained primary teachers training
certificates from a primary teachers training institute. They claim to be
entitled to the marks contemplated in Rule 9(2)(d) of the Recruitment
Rules, 2001. The petitioners claim that, these institutes have been
running on the basis of West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973 as
amended in 2002. The petitioners claim that, these institutes were
granted recognition by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education
under the provisions of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education
(Recognition of Primary teachers Training Institute) Regulation, 2002.
The validity of certificates issued by such training institutes came
up for consideration in Tulsi Baksi & Anr. (supra). It has been held
that,
"98. On these grounds, this petition deserves to be
allowed and we declare that all the respondent institutions
which are not recognised by the NCTE could not be given affiliation by the Board. The Institutions, which have not followed the provisions of the NCTE Act and are not recognised by the NCTE Authority, had no right to admit students in the said training programme.
99. Accordingly, we direct that unless these institutions are recognised, they shall not have any authority to admit any student in their institutions. It is clear from the facts that these institutions have acted in flagrant disregard of the provisions of the Act and Rules. All these institutions are bound to be aware of the provisions of the NCTE Act and could not have merely on the basis of the affiliation granted by the Board admitted the poor students. We are aware that the students are now going to lose one year which is very precious in their young lives. But the law must prevail and, accordingly, we direct all these unrecognized institutions to return all the fees to each and every student.
100. Before we part we also make it clear those Institutions who are already recognised under the NCTE Act, there are no impediments for them to run their Institutions. We further direct the State Authorities to render all assistance to the said Institutions."
Special Leave Petitions were filed against Tulsi Baksi & Anr. (supra) by some of the institutes concerned. The State had also filed a Special Leave Petition against Tulsi Baksi & Anr. (supra) being SLP (Civil) No. 28977 of 2009.
During the pendency of such Special Leave Petition the issue of validity of training certificates issued by such institutes for the period prior to 2005-2006 academic session came up for consideration in two writ petitions, namely Tumpa Roy (supra) and in W.P. No. 14589 (W) of 2010 (Sampa Prodhan v. State of West Bengal & Ors.). In Tumpa Roy (supra) the following directions were issued:-
"Thus, from a reading of the above observation it is clear that Basic Education Board U.P., relied on by the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner, has no manner of application whatsoever in the facts of the instant case, where the issue centres around a candidate who holds a certificate issued by a non-recognised Teachers' Training Institute.
In the facts of the instant case it appears from record that the writ petitioners affirmed the instant writ petition on 5th February, 2010 and filed it on 8th February, 2010. The writ petitioner duly participated in the selection process by appearing in the written test on 29th November, 2009 and was unsucc3essful. The writ petitioner now seeks, inter alia, issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for awarding of marks in her favour on the basis of her training qualification for the purpose of appointment in a vacant post of primary teacher for which selection process was initiated in the yare 2006. Admittedly, the selection process is already over. From the affidavit-in-opposition it is also notice that 1241 primary teachers have already been appointed in the district of Burdwan through such selection process, and who are now working as primary school teachers. They are not even made parties to the instant writ proceedings. In such circumstances, if any mandatory order as prayed for is passed, it will simply result in a totally chaotic situation and the very purpose of recruiting primary school teachers will frustrated, since children studying in primary schools throughout the State of West Bengal will be the ultimate sufferers and their right to get education will be severely compromised. Moreover, the writ petitioner is one of many who are similarly situate and circumstanced. All of them, in some way, have been affected by the effect of the judgment of this Court rendered in Tulsi Baksi's case, since the State of West Bengal has already proceeded to comply on the basis of the directions given therein.
However, while it is perhaps true that the State Government has acted purely on the basis of the declaration made and the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court in Tulsi Baksi's case and has proceeded accordingly, it is expected that the writ petitioner and others who are similarly situate and circumstanced, all of whom are now put in a predicament and in a distinctly disadvantageous position for no fault of theirs, shall be treated as a special case - in other words - as a class by themselves, by the State of West Bengal, so as to ensure that an efficacious solution could be arrived at, in the shortest possible period of time, which will enure to their benefit and not cause further adversity and which will also adequately address their grievance.
In such circumstances, the State of West Bengal, through the Secretary, Department of School Education, is directed to act in terms of the observations made hereinabove and announce a suitable policy in the matter, within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from date of communication of a photostat certified copy of this judgment.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly." None of the parties in Tumpa Roy (supra) had preferred an appeal. At least none has been bought to my notice.
W.P. No. 14589 (W) of 2010 (Sampa Prodhan v. State of West Bengal & Ors.) was disposed of by directing that such writ petition shall be governed by the directions given by the Court in Tumpa Roy (supra). An appeal was preferred against W.P. No. 14589(W) of 2010 (Sampa Prodhan v. State of West Bengal & Ors.). In such appeal, Tumpa Roy (supra) was considered.
The Division Bench has held in Sampa Prodhan (supra) that:-
"Rule 10 clearly give some relaxation in such type of cases in some States and time was given up to the end of academic session 2004-2005 to switch over from programmes for bringing them in conformity with the N.C.T.E. norms and standards and certain relaxation in respect of such type of cases given. As such, had the decision of Tulsi Baksi' & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (supra) or Tumpa Roy v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (supra) considered in its true light, the fact of Rule 10 of the N.C.T.E. Regulations, 2002 - it would have made all the difference and the candidates would stand covered by the same who had obtained their certificates between 2003 to 2004.
Accordingly, from a wholesome appreciation of the entire issue before us, we feel that the cases of the present appellants have no nexus with the decision of either Tulsi Baksi' & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (supra) or Tumpa Roy v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (supra).
Accordingly, we would set aside the order under appeal including the judgment and Order passed in W.P. No. 2580(W) of 2010 on 29/06/2010 and allow the appeal.
The appellants would not stand qualified for the post of Primary Teachers and the deficit marks obviously, would be required to be given by the authority concerned in the light of our aforesaid discussion.
With these directions the appeal stands disposed of."
Sampa Prodhan (supra) had, therefore, set aside Tumpa Roy (supra). It had directed that the appellants before the Court should be given the marks in terms of Rule 9(2)(d) of the Recruitment Rules, 2001.
The fact that the petitioners before me are similarly situated and circumstanced as that of the appellants in Sampa Prodhan (supra) is undisputed.
A public interest litigation was filed seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to cancel the appointments of primary teachers who were appointed in the year 1998 to 2005 on the basis of the marks awarded by the primary teachers training certificates. Such public interest litigation was disposed of in Hiranmoy Bhowmik & Ors. (supra). The submissions of the then Learned Advocate General appearing for the State in that matter have been recorded therein. Such submissions are as follows:-
"10. ........................................ In any case, the students who had prosecuted their studies obtained certificates from the institutions prior to the date of the judgment in Tulsi Baksi's case were not visited with any adverse consequences nor were they required to surrender their certificates. In the premises, the students who had already obtained their primary teachers training certificates prior to the date of the judgment in Tulsi Baksi's case could not be treated as disqualified for the post of primary teachers."
It has been held in Hiranmoy Bhowmik & Ors. (supra) that, Tulsi Baksi & Anr. (supra) was concerned only with the academic session of 2005-2006 onwards and not for any prior period. The challenge to the validity of the certificates issued for the period 1998 to 2005 was dismissed.
Tulsi Baksi & Anr. (supra) was considered by another Division Bench in MAT No. 124 of 2011 with CAN 788 of 2011 (Arpita Roy (Samanta) v. State of West Bengal & Ors). Sampa Prodhan (supra) was followed. It has been held that, "...................... the decision in the case of Tulsi Baksi & Anr. (supra) categorically made it clear it would operate prospectively, as would be appearing from a combined reading of the paragraphs 98, 99 and 100. This became more clear when other Division Bench in the case of Hiranmoy Bhowmik & Ors. (supra) accepted the argument by the then Advocate General and dismissed the writ petition, which sought annulment of recruitment from 1998 to 2005 considering the training certificate issued by the training institute under the West Bengal Board of Primary Education." Another Division Bench has considered Arpita Roy (Samanta) (supra), Sampa Prodhan (supra) as well as Tulsi Baksi & Anr. (supra) and has followed the same in the judgment and order dated February 4, 2015 passed in FMA 1015 of 2012 (Mouli Chakraborty (Shom) v. State of West Bengal & Ors.). The relevant portion is as follows:-
"These appeals would involve a short question as to whether the training qualification mark should be added to the credit of the concerned candidate while being considered for the post of primary teacher. The issue was dealt with by the Division bench in the case of Arpita Roy (Samanta) vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (M.A.T. 124 of 2011) dated March 2, 2012, wherein the Division Bench followed the decision of Sampa Prodhan and Tulsi Baksi. We directed that while considering for appointment the training certificate issued by the training Institute under the West Bengal Board of Primary Education should be considered. We are told, Sampa Prodhan is not being tested before the Apex Court and the appeal is pending and awaiting its disposal.
In such event, we dispose of both the appeals and the connected applications by directing the concerned District Primary School Council and/or the Director of School Education to consider the decision in the matter of Arpita Roy (Samanta) (supra) by applying the same. However, in case compliance is made that would be subject to the result of the Apex Court proceedings in the case of Sampa Prodhan. We would expect the Council to act as expeditiously as possible and preferable communicate their decision within two months from the date of communication of this order."
Several Special Leave Petitions directed against Tulsi Baksi & Anr. (supra), Arpita Roy (Samanta) (supra), Sampa Prodhan (supra) and other matters were taken up for consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on August 19, 2015. Such Special Leave Petitions were disposed of as follows:-
"Both sides would agree that in view of the subsequent development that has taken place during the pendency of the special leave petitions, in our view, nothing survive in these special leave petitions for our consideration and decision and, therefore, the special leave petitions are disposed of as having become unnecessary.
As a sequel to the above, all pending interlocutory applications are also disposed of."
The Special Leave Petitions were not admitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. At least nothing has been placed on record to suggest it. The Special Leave Petitions were not pressed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The parties therein had invited the disposal of the Special Leave petitions as having become unnecessary. On such invitation the Special Leave Petitions were disposed of as having become unnecessary. In view of such disposal, Tulsi Baksi & Anr. (supra), Hiranmoy Bhowmik & Ors. (supra), Arpita Roy (Samanta) (supra), and Sampa Prodhan (supra) have attained finality.
The validity of certificates issued by the training institutes prior to 2005 has been upheld in Hiranmoy Bhowmik & Ors. (supra). The Division Bench in Arpita Roy (Samanta) (supra) has held that, Tulsi Baksi & Anr. (supra) would operate prospectively and that such position has been accepted in Hiranmoy Bhowmik & Ors. (supra). Once the validity of the certificates prior to 2005 have been upheld it would not lie with any authority to contend that, appropriate marks cannot be awarded on the basis of such certificates in terms of the Recruitment Rules, 2001 prevailing in 2006.
The stand of the State as recorded in Hiranmoy Bhowmik & Ors. (supra) is that, the students who had prosecuted their studies and obtained certificates from the teachers training institutes prior to 2005 as held in Tulsi Baksi & Anr. (supra) were not visited any adverse consequences nor were they required to surrender their certificates. Such students cannot be treated as disqualified for the post of primary teachers. The validity of the appointments of primary teachers for the year 1998-2005 on the basis of marks awarded to such teachers for the primary teachers training certificates were upheld in Hiranmoy Bhowmik & Ors. (supra). In Hiranmoy Bhowmik & Ors. (supra), the State has accepted that, marks could be awarded for the training certificates for the period 1998-2005 and that the award of marks for training certificates for such period is valid. In such circumstances, the State cannot be allowed to resile from its declared stand in Hiranmoy Bhowmik & Ors. (supra). The contentions of the State in the present proceedings are contrary to that of Hiranmoy Bhowmik & Ors. (supra). The action of the District Primary School Councils in not awarding marks to candidates who possesses teacher training certificates for the years 1998-2005 is contrary to the declared stand of the State as recorded in Hiranmoy Bhowmik & Ors. (supra).
The learned Advocate General has contended that, by reason of Tulsi Baksi & Anr. (supra) and the subsequent pronouncement by the Court, there has arisen an ambiguity with regard to the situation. He has submitted that, there appears to be a conflict between Tulsi Baksi & Anr. (supra) on one hand and Sampa Prodhan (supra), Tumpa Roy (supra) and Hiranmoy Bhowmik & Ors. (supra) on the other hand. With the deepest of respect, I find no conflict. Tulsi Baksi & Anr. (supra) has been explained in Hiranmoy Bhowmik & Ors. (supra). The Courts, thereafter, in Sampa Prodhan (supra), Arpita Roy (Samanta) (supra) as well as Mouli Chakraborty (Shom) have followed the situation that, the training certificates issued by the training institutes for the period prior to 2005 are valid. Such findings of the Division Benches noted above are binding on me.
The petitioners before me have been actively discriminated against. In fact all persons participating in the 2006 selection holding a training certificate not being awarded the requisite marks in terms of Rule 9(2)(d) of the Recruitment Rules, 2001 have been discriminated against without any reasonable basis. The authorities are obliged to award requisite marks for the training certificates to the candidates participating in the 2006 selection process who have such training certificates for the period prior to 2005.
The contention on behalf of the State that, the 2006 vacancies have been filled up does not prevent the grant of relief to the petitioners. The 2006 vacancies have been filled up on the basis of a panel prepared from out of the candidates participating in the selection process. The panel is required to be reworked in accordance with the directions contained herein. The fact that, the 2006 vacancies were filled up by the District Primary School Councils would neither prevent the District Primary School Councils from reworking the panel nor giving appointments from the fresh panel in accordance with merit. The total number of vacancies available for 2006 is not being touched by such process. The 2006 panel on the basis of which appointments have been given was not prepared in accordance with law.
The subsequent change in the eligibility criteria for appointment of teachers by NCTE is also not relevant to the facts of these cases as the change in the eligibility criteria prescribed by NCTE was subsequent to the 2006 selection process. The writ petitions are concerned with the 2006 selection process. They are seeking reliefs with regard to the 2006 selection process. Their eligibility will be considered on the basis of the eligibility criteria governing the 2006 selection process. The subsequent changes in the eligibility criteria will not affect them. They are not seeking fresh selection.
The learned Additional Advocate General has also drawn the attention of the Court to the prayers in the writ petitions as framed. In my view the prayers in the writ petitions as framed do not impede the grant of the reliefs to the petitioners. In any event, such prayers do not disentitle the petitioners to the reliefs. In a writ jurisdiction, a Court can always mould the relief prayed for to meet the exigencies of the situation before the Court.
The issue, therefore, falling for consideration in these writ petitions have to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the petitioners.
All District Primary School Councils in the State of West Bengal undertaking the 2006 selection process will revisit the panel out of which appointments of primary teachers have been granted in the 2006 selection process. Such District Primary School Councils will award appropriate marks in terms of Rule 9(2)(d) of the Recruitment Rules, 2001 to every candidate possessing requisite training certificate for the years prior to 2005. The District Primary School Councils will prepare a fresh panel on such basis. District Primary School Council thereafter will proceed to give appointments to the persons in the panel in accordance with merit for the 2006 vacancies.
It is expected that, the District Primary School Councils complete the entire exercise within a period of six weeks from the date of the communication of this order. The District Primary School Councils will undertake the exercise for all the candidates participating in the selection process of 2006. It will not limit the exercise to the petitioners only. On completion of such exercise the District Primary School Councils will proceed to appoint the candidates in accordance with merit. The authorities will grant approval to such appointments in accordance with law.
These 284 writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.
[DEBANGSU BASAK, J.]