Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rajib Brahma & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 20 July, 2021
02 to 10.
20.07.2021.
Ct. No. 11.
F.B./BR/KB.
MAT 638 of 2021
with
IA No. CAN 1 of 2021
with
CAN 2 of 2021
with
CAN 3 of 2021
Rajib Brahma & Ors.
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
with
MAT 650 of 2021
with
IA No. CAN 1 of 2021
Maniraj Ghosh & Ors.
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
with
MAT 651 of 2021
with
IA No. CAN 1 of 2021
Anita Debnath & Ors.
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
with
MAT 655 of 2021
with
IA No. CAN 1 of 2021
with
CAN 2 of 2021
Chhotan Saha
-Vs.-
Abhijit Ghosh & Ors.
with
MAT 657 of 2021
with
IA No. CAN 1 of 2021
with
CAN 2 of 2021
Anindita Pramanik
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
with
MAT 659 of 2021
with
IA No. CAN 1 of 2021
Bibhas Dolui & Ors.
2
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
MAT 661 of 2021
with
IA No. CAN 1 of 2021
with
CAN 2 of 2021
Arindam Das
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
with
MAT 667 of 2021
with
IA No. CAN 1 of 2021
with
CAN 2 of 2021
Sk. Jamaluddin & Ors.
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
with
MAT 671 of 2021
with
IA No. CAN 1 of 2021
Snehansu Sekhar Panda
-Vs.-
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
(Via Video Conference)
Mr. Subir Sanyal,
Mr. Vishak Bhattacharyya,
Mr. Tamal Taru Panda,
Ms. Ruchira Chatterjee,
Ms. Sumouli Sarkar,
Mr. Sagnik Roychowdhury,
Mr. Subhrangsu Panda,
Ms. Debashree Dhamali,
Mr. Amitabrata Roy,
Mr. Jamiruddin Khan,
Ms. Rima Das,
Mr. Santanu Maji
..... For the Appellants in
MAT 638 of 2021, MAT 659
of 2021 & MAT 671 of 2021.
Mr. Bikas Ranjan Bhattacharyya,
Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta,
Mr. Saikat Sutradhar,
Mr. Arka Nandi,
3
Mr. Bikram Banerjee
..... For the Appellants in MAT
650 of 2021 & MAT 651 of 2021.
Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya,
Mr. Firdous Samim,
Ms. Gopa Biswas
..... For the Appellants in
MAT 655 of 2021.
Mr. Sandip Kumar De,
Mr. Abhijit Sarkar,
Mr. Abhik C. Kundu
..... For the Appellant in
MAT 657 of 2021.
Mr. P. S. Deb Barman,
Mr. Dibyendu Chatterjee,
Ms. Reshmi Ghosh,
Mr. Soumya Sankar Chini
..... For the Appellant in
MAT 661 of 2021.
Mr. Piyush Chaturbedi,
Ms. Sumita Sen,
Mr. Somesh Kumar Ghosh,
Mr. Asit Baran Ghosh,
Mr. Koushik Chowdhury
..... For the Appellants in
MAT 667 of 2021.
Mr. Chittapriya Ghosh,
Mr. Sandipan Pal
..... For the Applicant in
CAN 2 of 2021 of MAT
638 of 2021 & MAT
667 of 2021.
Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya,
Mr. Arindam Chattapadhyay,
Mr. Joy Chakraborty
..... For the State in MAT
650 of 2021 & MAT 659 of
2021.
Ms. Chaitali Bhattacharya,
Mr. Subhendu Roychowdhury,
Ms. Supriya Dubey
..... For the State in MAT
651 of 2021.
Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Vaisya,
Mr. Joydip Banerjee
4
..... For the State in MAT 657 of
2021.
Mr. Kishsore Datta,
Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra,
Ms. Supriya Dubey
...... For the Commission.
Mr. Kaushik Chowdhury
..... For the Applicant in CAN
3 of 2021 of MAT 638 of 2021.
Since an identical question of law is involved in
these appeals, all the appeals with their connected
applications are taken up analogously by consent of the
parties.
The facts show that a cry has gone out for
appointment to the posts of Upper Primary Assistant
Teachers (for short referred to as UPATs) and, the cry is
getting louder by the hour since the appointments have
not been implemented for a long long time following the
conclusion of the first Selection Test for UPATs held in
2016.
Coincidentally, both the appellants/who were
the writ petitioners before the Hon'ble Single Bench
want appointments as well as both the State and Non-
State respondents want the vacancies to be filled up
considering the dire need for trained UPATs coupled with employment opportunities.
It has thus become imperative for this Court to separate the signal from the noise of this litigation. 5
Under challenge in these bunch of appeals is the common order dated 9th July, 2021 passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench in the respective writ petitions.
The Hon'ble Single Bench, inter alia, permitted the primary respondents, being the West Bengal Central School Service Commission (for short referred to only as the Commission), to continue with the process of recruitment of UPATs which is stuck at the point of conducting the personality tests. The Hon'ble Single Bench simultaneously permitted the present appellants/the writ petitioners to approach the Commission through individual representations for ventilating their grievances relating to the omission of their names from the Interview List.
The arguments of the parties essentially run as follows:-
First, by the Notification dated 20th September, 2016, the Selection Rules, 2016 for recruitment of UPATs was published. Important to notice for this discussion is Rule 12 thereof which, inter alia, instructs the Commission to prepare a general list of eligible candidates on the basis of a computer generated data base. Rule 12, through its various sub-clauses, also permits the Commission to verify the validity of the TET Certificate and other academic-cum-professional 6 qualifications of the candidates in the manner as mentioned in Part-A Schedule-II of the said Rules.
Part-A Schedule-II of the said Rules specifies that for each category of eligibility qualification and/or certificate held by the candidate, the actual marks granted would be weighted by a weightage system which will apply to all candidates claiming eligibility. It is also provided that the final interview list shall show the respective merit position of the candidates on the basis of their weighted marks in terms of Part-A Schedule-II (supra) to which the marks in the personality test shall be added. The number of candidates to be called for the personality test category wise on the basis of the merit as determined by the procedure to be followed under Part-A Schedule-II (supra) shall be in the ratio of 1:1.4 of the final vacancy position.
Mr. Subir Sanyal, Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, Mr. Piyush Chaturvedi, Mr. Sandip
Kumar De, learned Counsel appearing with other learned Advocates for the appellants submit that by a detailed judgement and order dated 11th December, 2020 in a batch of writ petitions, a Hon'ble Single Bench cancelled all selections to the posts of UPATs and, at Paragraph-30 thereof, directed that the fresh selection process of the candidates found to be eligible 7 under Rule 12(2) should proceed onwards from the stage of the Commission verifying the validity of certificates and qualifications as laid down in Rule 12(3).
It was made, inter alia, clear by the Hon'ble Single Bench that the data base and selection of eligible candidates for verification must consist of all candidates applying online for the selection process. The Hon'ble Single Bench was further pleased to lay down a specific time frame for completing each stage of the selection.
Learned Counsel for the appellants primarily submit that it would appear from the pleadings placed before the Hon'ble Single Bench that the weightage was directed to be granted mandatorily under Part-A Schedule-II (supra). By way of illustration this Court is taken to the list of certain successful candidates who have been called for the personality test to demonstrate that the weightage as contemplated by the 2016 Rules and directed to be implemented by the judgement and order dated 11th December, 2020 appears to have been followed more in the exception than in the rule.
It is submitted that by comparing the position of some of the appellants with their actual marks as received in their certificates as well as in their academic 8 and professional qualifications, in the event the weightage as contained in Part-A Schedule-II would have been granted to them, such candidates/the appellants would be eligible for the personality test by reason of their superior position in the merit list. It is the specific statement of learned Counsel that documents hitherto put on record in the appeal and also before the Hon'ble Single Bench show that in some of the cases, such as one Netai Mondal, the grant of weightage did not follow Part-A Schedule-II (supra).
The appellants thus argue that if the personality test is allowed to go through with its inherent flaws in preparing the merit list, the appellants/the writ petitioners shall be left remediless. Essentially, the Selection Test of 2016 comprises of only two batches of candidates who passed the TET Examinations held in 2012 and 2015 respectively.
It is submitted that the Hon'ble Single Bench, although leaving room for the appellants to ventilate their grievances before the Commission, did not provide any road map as to the amelioration of such grievances in the event any of such grievances are found to be correct. Therefore, the procedure placed by the Hon'ble Single Bench for redressal is only an exercise in good optics.
9
The further argument is added to the findings of the Hon'ble Single Bench that some of the appellants/writ petitioners have not been able to produce the interview list of 8th July, 2021 in their writ petitions. It is submitted that considering the fact that their writ petitions were filed earlier and on the basis of the interview list dated 21st June, 2021, the imposition of costs by the Hon'ble Single Bench on such appellants/the writ petitioners is most onerous. It is submitted that the list dated 21st June, 2021 was the only list available to the appellants/writ petitioners at the time of filing their individual writ petitions. Instead of imposing costs, the Hon'ble Single Bench ought to have granted the appellants/the writ petitioners the opportunity to produce the list of 8th July, 2021 by way of a Supplementary Affidavit.
The appellants therefore pray for suspension of the present selection process until the Commission manages to create, with the help of this Court, a truly level playing field.
Meeting the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Kishore Datta, learned Advocate General, also appearing for the Commission, opens his submissions with some statistics. It is submitted that there are 354 categories of vacancies against which 15,436 candidates were called for the interview. The 10 total number of vacancies stood at 14,339. The candidates rejected stood at 9,327 and pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench impugned in these appeals more than 8,500 candidates have applied under the Grievance Redressal Mechanism.
Mr. Datta submits that no absolute right accrues on the appellants/the writ petitioners to claim appointment and, in view of Rule 20 of the 2016 Rules, the domain of interpreting any question arising out of the Rules lies with the State Government. Learned Senior Counsel for the Commission also points out to certain technical aspects wherein the data of the candidates was not correctly uploaded by them for ready accessibility by the Commission. Learned Advocate General submits that the appointments require to be completed breaking the chain of continuous litigation.
Having heard the parties and anxiously considering the materials placed at this stage, this Court by way of an interim order directs as follows:-
First, the Commission shall continue to hold the interviews of all the candidates whose names appear for the personality test.11
Second, the Commission shall conclude the interview, grant marks in the personality test and prepare a panel of the successful interviewees.
Third, the Commission shall not grant appointments from the panel of successful interviewees without the leave of the Hon'ble Court.
Fourth, the Commission shall prepare a clear data base of the successful candidates in the personality test which shall include, among others, the actual/statutory marks of the individual candidates in terms of their certificates, qualifications specified by Rule 12 of the 2016 Rules, plus the weightage given against each such actual/statutory marks plus the marks obtained in the personality test and, on the basis of such procedure their individual relative position in the combined merit list.
Fifth, the Commission shall simultaneously proceed with the redressal mechanism set in place by the Hon'ble Single Bench of the aggrieved candidates.
Sixth, at the end of the time period for completing the Grievance Redressal Mechanism, the Commission shall produce charts in respect of the aggrieved candidates containing their actual/statutory marks, the weightage granted against each of them under Rule 12 and keeping the space for personality 12 test marks blank as well as stating any other issue of particular relevance to the aggrieved candidate.
Seventh, on the next date, the Commission shall place both the combined merit list data base of the candidates actually interviewed in terms of the directions given above as well as the data base reflecting the redressal mechanism of the aggrieved candidates before this Court for further directions, if any. The Commission should also maintain at its disposal for production before the Court, when necessary, the original data base of the merit listed candidates at the time of filing their applications for selection in 2016.
It is made clear that equity shall not be created in favour of any party by any of the actions taken above. The directions in this order are in fulfilment of the mandate of Rule 12 of the 2016 Rules which stands affirmed by the judgement and order of the Hon'ble Single Bench dated 11th December, 2020.
The Commission will keep its grievance redressal portal open till the 31st July, 2021 and the matter will return after twelve weeks under the heading "Applications".13
The direction to pay costs by individual writ petitioners, who are also the appellants here, stands stayed.
All parties to act in terms of the copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) (Subrata Talukdar, J.)