Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Liton Baroi vs Education on 10 May, 2022
4) .? Do 1 0A 351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 35 1/1570/2019 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA Date of order: jo: 09- In4, Hon'ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member Hon'ble Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member ©" Present No. O.A. 351/00095/2019 1. M.A. 351/00191/2021 (@ 2 Gd 3. 4, 5. Liton Baroi, S/o Shri Parimal Baroi, Aged about 31 years residing at Nabagram, Diglipur, North and Middle Andaman, Pin- 744202. Vijai Das, S/o Shri Dilip Das, Residing at R. K. Gram, Diglipur, North and Middle Andaman, Pin- 744202. Bethika Sikdhar, D/o Shri Ashok Sikdhar, Residing at Nabagram, Diglipur, North and Middle Andaman, Pin-744202. Pooja Samadder, D/o Shri Shyamal Samadder, Residing at Sitanagar, Diglipur, North and Middle Andaman, Pin- 744202. Ashutosh Kumar Halder, S/o Shri S. C. Halder, Residing at R. K. Gram, Ward No. 4, Diglipur, North and Middle Andaman, Pin-744202. Suraj Kumar Mondal, S/o Shri Purna Chandra Mondal, Residing at Ram Nagar Near Middle School, Neil Island South Andaman, Pin-744104. oe fi © SSMRLON cy 2 0A 351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019 7. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. P. Shahina, D/o. P. Ali, Residing at village and Post Office- Calicut, Port Blair, South Andaman, Pin-744105. Monika Rani Karmakar, D/o. Shri Santosh Karmakar, Residing at Police Line, Post Office- Shadipur, Port Blair, South Andaman, Pin- 744106. Narattam Das, S/o Shri Jagadish Das, Residing at V.S. Pally, Diglipur, North and Middle Andaman, Pin-744202. Pritish Gayali, S/o Shri Arabinda Gayali, Residing. at Village and Post Office- Nimbutala North and Middle Andaman, Pin- 744204, Rattan Biswas, S/o Shri Surja Biswas, Residing at Sitanagar, Diglipur, North and Middle Andaman, Pin-744202. Anita Biswas, D/o. Shri Dinobandhu Biswas, Residing at C/o Sunil Mondal, MET Observatory, Shadipur, Port Blair, Pin- 744106. Sameer Kulu, S/o. Shri Suresh Kulu, Residing at Krishna Nagar,Havelock South Andaman, Pin-744211. Sanjib Paul, me oy 3 0A351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 35 1/1570/2019 15. 16. 17. -- 18. 19. 20. 21. S/o. Shri Susanta Paul, Residing at Swarajgrém Diglipur, North and Middle Andaman, Pin-744202. Susaen Sardar, S/o. Shri Babatosh Sardar, Residing at Village and Post Office- Subashgram Diglipur, North and Middle Andaman, Pin-744202. Sangita Biswas, D/o Shri Nirmal Kumar Biswas, Residing at Village and Post Office- Uttara Kadamtala North and Middle Andaman, Pin- 744209. M. Mubashira, D/o. Lt. M. A. Majeed, Residing at Haddo, B. K. Lane, Seashore Road, Ward No. 2, Port Blair-744102. Nazneen Bibi, D/o. Mohd. Ibrahim, Residing at 280, M.G. Road, Lamba Line, behind Tandoor Hotel, South Andaman, Pin- 744106. Protiba Das, . S/o Shri Jagadish Das, Residing at C/o Indrojit Paul, Village- Manglutan, Homphrigunj, Port Blair, Pin- 744105. Biswajit Paul, S/o. Shri Uttam Paul, _ Residing at Village- Harinagar, Post Office- Bill Ground, North and Middle Andaman, Pin- 744201. Seema C. Reddy, Os a 4 0A 351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019 No. 0.A. 351/00120/2019 M.A. 351/00192/2021 22. 23. 24. 25. 1. D/o Shri S. Chander Reddy, Residing at Opposite Zila Parishad community Hall, Ward No. 23, Prothrapur, Port Blair, Pin-744103. Kamarun Nisa, D/o Shri K. Abdulla, Residing at C/o HM Store, Nayapuram, Wimberlygung, South Andaman, Pin- 744206. T. Naresh Kumar, S/o. Shri T. Malakonda Raidu, Residing at Police Line, Port Blair, Pin- 744106. Priyanka Mistry, D/o. Shri Suresh Mistry, Residing at 49B, Street, Buniyadabad, South Andaman, Pin-744102. Amit Kumar Dey, S/o Shri Anil Kumar Dey, Residing at Village-Govindapur, Post Office- Nimbudera, North and Middle Andaman, Pin-744201. ... Applicants Abhisekh Biswas, S/o Biswajit Biswas, Aged about 23 years, residing at Nabagram, Diglipur, North and Middle Andaman, Pin- 744202. Biva Bairagi, D/o Gour Bairagi, aged about 34 years, residing at Nabagram Diglipur, North Middle Andaman, Pin- 744202. . hw " 5 OA35 1/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019 oO" 3. Deepa Kumari, D/o Guru Swamy, Aged about 32 years, residing at R. No. 14, 3" Floor, Samsuvas Plaza, Gurudwara Line, Port Blair, Pin-744101. 4, Phani Kumar Das, S/o Bhaktibhushan Das, Aged about 26 years, residing at Santipur, P.O. Swadeshnagar, North and Middle Andaman, Pin- 744201. 5. Binota Biswas, D/o Subash Biswas, Aged about 33 years, residing at Village Sa _ Ramkrishnaur, Little Andaman, South a4 | Andaman, Pin-744207. 6. Raikishori Mondal, W/o Pratap Kumar Mistry, Aged about _ years, residing at Village- Uttara, Post Kadamtala, North & Middle Andaman, Pin- 744209. 7. Rahul Kumar Mishra, S/o Kameshwarnath Mishra, Aged about 31 years, residing at Near 'Krishna Temple, Naya Basti, Bamboo Flat, Pin-744102. 8. Samit Mazumder, S/o Swapan Mazumder, Aged about 27 years, residing at R.K. Gram, Ward No. 6, near Mahindra Showroom, Diglipur, North & Middle Andaman, A& N Islands, Pin-744202. 9, Aalia Ali, D/o P. Venkat Raman, Wn 6 0A351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Aged about 33 years, residing at 32/1B, Street Buniyadabad, Port Blair, South Andaman, Pin-744102. | M. T. Sherban, D/o M. T. Khalid, Aged about 25 years, residing at Malapuram, Port Blair, Pin- K. P. Nazira Begum, D/o K. P. Hussain, Aged about 25 years, residing at Bamboo Flate, Port Blair, South Andaman, Pin- Chumki Gharami, D/o Motilal Gharami, Aged about 28 years, residing at Vijaynagar, Havelock, South Andaman, Pin-744211. Sarmila Mandal, D/o Sunil Mondal, Aged about 34 years, residing at Laxmipur, Diglipur, North & Middle Andaman, Pin- 744202. Azmin Begum, D/o Iqubal Hussain, Aged about 30 years, residing at M.A. Road, Phoenix Bay, Port Blair, South Andaman, Pin-744102. K. Vijayanthi, D/o K. Karuppaiah, Aged about 28 years, residing at Baludera, Mayabunder, North & Middle Andaman, Pin-744202. At sevevees Applicants 7 0A351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019 ©) No. 0.A. 351/01385/2020 1. Deepa Mondal, M.A. 351/00704/2020 D/o Dasrath Debnath, Aged about 27 years residing at Neil Kendra, Shaheed Sweep, South Andaman, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Pin-744104. 2. R. Anila, daughter of M. Rajendran Pilla, aged about 28 years residing at Chakkar Gaon, Port Blair, Pin-744112. 3. R. S. Sajitha, daughter of R. Sukumaran, aged about 28 years residing at Padnabhapuram Village, Betapur No. 3, PO North & Middle Andaman, Pin-744201. 4, Vinay Anand, son of Anand Kumar, aged about 26 years residing at Marine Dockyard, Directorate of Shipping Services, Port Blair, Pin-744101. 5. T. Rebekah, daughter of T. Saibabu, aged about 23 years'' residing at Buniyadabad, South Andaman, Pin- 744102. 6. Alka Tirkey, daughter of Egnash Tirkey, aged about 24 years residing at Krishna 7. Radhika, daughter of D. Radhakrishnan Nair, aged about 26 years residing at Dharmapur Village, Betapur No. 7, Andaman, Pin- 744201. 8. K. Mini Nair, daughter S.B. Prakash, aged 26 years residing at Dhanikhari, Near Panchayat Youth Club, Pin: 744110; 9. Aruna Kindo, daughter of Late Jugal Kumar Kindo, aged about 27 years residing hy a 8 0A 351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019 oO at Wimberly Gunj, South Andaman, Pin: 744206. _ 10. G. Mahaswari, son of G D P Trimurty Roa, aged about 30 years , residing at CIARI Complex, Bathu Basti, Garacharma Post, Port Blair, South Andaman, 744105; 11. Smriti Mandal, daughter of Naresh Chandra Malo, residing at Subhashgram, Diglipur, North and Middle Andaman Island, Pin: 744202 Priya Singh, daughter of Late Dhan Singh, aged about 29 years residing at Garacharma, near TTI College, Pin: 744105; 4.) 12. Jannatul Firdos, son of M. Ahamed, aged about 29 years residing at Tapu Basthi, Bambooflat, Pin: 744107; 13. Neelima Shah, daughter of Nityananda Saha, aged about 27 years residing at Prashant Colony, Near Manna Church, Hope Town, Bambooflat, Pin- 744107. 14. Lucky Dey, son of B.B. Dey, aged about 29 years residing at Ferrargunj, near Syndicate Bank, Pin- 744206. 15. V. Vani, daughter of V Naga Babu, aged about 26 years residing at New Royal Tailors, Ward No. 1, Haddo, Port Blair, Pin- 744102. 16. P. Varalaxmi, daughter of P. Adhi Babu, about 32 years residing at C/o Enketa Manikal Naidu, Near Govt. Poultry Farm We (penny une 9 0A 351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019 Gate, Dollygunj, Port Blair, South Andaman, Pin: 744103. 17. Arti Samad, daughter of Anurag Samad, residing at Anishi Cell, Directorate of Health Services, Port Blair, Pin- 7441010. 18. Anita Sharma, daughter of Laxman Sharma, aged about 27 years residing at OPP TTI, Garacharma, Pin- 744105; 19. Shalini Tirkey, daughter of Kamraj Tirkey, aged about 27 years residing at Wimberly Gunj, South Andaman, Pin- 744206; 20. Punam, daughter of Saw Chow Win, aged about 30 years residing at C/o Saw Jackson, Ward No. 5, Pheonix Bay, Pin- 744101. 21. R. Usha, daughter of S. Rajamanikam, aged about 29 years residing at C/o Rajamanikarn Store, Jetty Road, Junglighat, Port Blair, South Andaman, Pin- 744103. 22. R. Padma, daughter of R. Rama Rao, aged about 24 years residing at Qtr. No. TY i1/GG/72, Goal Ghar, Port Blair, South Andaman, Pin-744103; 23. M. Sajida Begum, daughter of M. Saidalvi, aged about 30 years residing at Opposite Police Quarter, Near office of the Assistant Engineer, Bambooflat, Pin- 744107. 24. C. Suganya, daughter of K. Chandra Shekar, aged about 29 years residing at c/o M M Sotre, Near Cloud 7, Donatella kg oo 10 OA 351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019 Complex, Bathu Basthi, Port Blair, South Andaman, Pin-744105; 25. Satabdi Mistry, son of Baloram Mistry, aged about 24 years residing at Parnashala, Rangat, North and Middle Andaman, Pin-744205. 26. Bishal Halder, son of Basudev Halder, aged about 23 years residing at Kaushalya Nagar, Ranaghat, North & Middle Andaman, Pin-744205. 27. Amit Paul, son of Late Prashanta Paul, aged about 23 years residing at Swaraj Gram, Diglipur, North Andaman, Pin- 744202. . 28. K. Shrimathi, daughter of Late N. Kasinathan, aged about 29 years residing at Atlanta Point, Pin- 744101. 29. §. Pandi Selvi, Daughter of C. Sethupathy, aged about 29 years residing at . Rajaji Nagar, Ward No. 9, Garacharma, Pin- 744105/ 30. Mehroon Nisha, daughter of K. Abdul Kareem, residing at Near Sinclair Restaurant, Southpoint, Shadipur Post Office, Pin-744106. 31. J. Puja, daughter of J. Purushotham, aged about 23 years residing at C/o J. Vijaya, O/o the District & Sessions Judge, A& N Islands, Pin-744101. 32. Shaili Bara, daughter of Egnalius Bara, aged about 24 years residing at Police quarter No. 6/Type-3, Dean Street, hot a 11 0A 351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019 Oo Junglighat, Port Blair, South Andaman, Pin- 744101. 33. Mayury Ojha, son of Rakesh Ojha, aged about 25 years residing at c/o Sanna Rao & Sons Shop, Krishna Nagar Junction, Shadipur, Pin-744106. 34. Rakhi Dutta, daughter of Swapan Dutta, aged about 25 years residing at Subhashgram, Digliur, North & Middle Andaman, Pin- 744202. 35. Nisha Kumari Kujur, aged about 33 years residing at C/o Samuel Store, Pather gudda, near Ganesh Mandir, Pin-744105. 36. Nisa Toppo, daughter of Nowas Toppo, aged about 29 years residing at Dairy Farm, near Shiv Mandir, Pin-744103. 37. B. Vaidevi, daughter of R. Bose, aged about 30 years residing at Near community Hall, New Pahar Gaon, Pin- 744105. 38. Biji Roshan, daughter of C. M. Pappachan, aged about 29 years residing at C/o Roshan George, Sub Inspector of Police, Behind IPC Church, near Balaji Store, Bird Lane, Prothrapur, Port Blair, Pin-744107. 39, Ananta Debnath, daughter of Anath Debnath, aged about 25 years residing at C/o Dulal Debnath, Ward No. 3, near Anganwadi, Madhupur, Diglipur, North Andaman, Pin-744202. 40. Priya Singh, daughter of Late Dhan Singh, aged about 29 years residing at Garacharma, near TTI College, Pin-744105. het a 6 \wletrg; er a) cenp, 2 12 0A 351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019 0.A. no. 351/01570/2019 With M.A. No. 351/00012/2022 41. Arifa Haneef, daughter of V. K. Mohd. Haneefa, aged about 28 years residing at N. Rafique Store, Near Middle School, Tapubasthi, Bamboo Flat, Pin-744107. 42. Nagma, daughter of M. Waseem, aged about 27years residing at Marine, Near Bay Island Hotel, Port Blair, Pin- 744101. 1. Surajit Kumar Malo, son of Sukharanjan Malo, residing at R. K. Gram, Diglipur, resing at Village -- R. K. Gram, Post- Diglipur, District- .North and Middle Andaman, Pin- 744202. 2. Sashadhar Halder, son of Late Manindra Nath Halder, residing at Vilalge- Kalighat, Post- Kalighat, District- North Andaman, Pin- 744202. 3. Debakar Mistry, son of Sambhu Nath Mistry, residing at Village- Sitanagar, Post- Sitanagar, Diglipur, District- North and Middle Andaman, Pin- 744202. 4. Ashutosh Biswas, son of Late Haren Biswas, residing at Village- Krishna Nagar, Post- Krishna Nagar, Swaraj Dweep (Havelock), District- South Andaman, Pin- 744211. 5. Basudev Baray, son of Mintu Baray, residing at Ramkrishnapur, Little Andaman, . village- Ramkrishnapur, Post Office- Ramkrishnapur, Little Andaman, District- South Andaman, Pin- 744207. Lu® a 13 0A 351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019 6. Banashree Biswas, daughter of Shri Gopal Chandra Biswas, residing at Ward No. 3, Vidya Sagar Pally, Village- Vidya Sagar Pally, Post- Aieral Bay, Diglipur, District- North and Middle Andaman, Pin- 744202. 7. Barnali Paul, daughter of Gour Gopal Paul, residing at Village- Madhupur, Post- Diglipur, District- North and Middle Andaman, Pin- 744202. 8. G. Jyoti, daughter of Late g. Madhava Rao, residing at Village- Round Basti, Abardeen Bazar, Post- Middle Point, Abardeen Bazar, District- South Andaman, Pin- 744101. 9. Nagma Aizaz, daughter of Dinesh Chander Rao, residing at Village- Dollygunj, Port Blair, Post- Dollygunj, Port Blair, District- South Andaman, Pin- 744102. 10. G. Laxman Roa, son of G. Narayan Rao, residing at Village- Shanti Basthi, Post- Nimbutala, District- Middle Andaman, Pin- 744205. 11. Bhushan Baraik, son of Manohar Badaik, residing at Village- Navin Nagar, Post- Diglipur, District- North and Middle Andaman, Pin- 744202. 12. Dilesh, son of P. Saniyasi, residing at Village- R.R.O. (Fisheries colony), Post- Betapur No. -3, District- Middle Andaman, Pin- 744201. hat a" ey 14 0A351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019 13. K. Reetu Rao, son of Late Rama Rao, residing at House 21, AIR lane, Prem Nagar, Port Blair, Pin-744102. 14. Punam Mridha, son of Manindra Mridha, residing at Village & P.O.- Chouldari Lal Pahad, District- South Andaman, Pin- 744103. 15. Lilly Grac, son of Manual Soreng, residing at village- Mannarghat, P.O.- Winberlygunj, District- South Andaman, pin- 744206. 16. Kiran Kujur, son of Late Firdina Kujur, residing at Village- Kadakachang, P.O.- Mathura, District- South Andaman, Pin- 744206. aenosesee - VERSUS- 4. The Union of India, Service through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. . The Lieutenant Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Raj Niwas, Pin -- 744 101. . The Andaman & Nicobar Administration, Service through the Chief Secretary, Andaman & Nicobar Administration, Secretariat Complex, Port Blair-744 101. ht Applicants a one reundt?? 15 0A 351/95/2019, OA 354/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/ 1570/2019 4. The Secretary (Education), Andaman & Nicobar Administration, Secretariat, Port Blair-744 101. 5. The Director of Education, Andaman & Nicobar Administration, VIP Road, Port Blair-744 103. 6. The Deputy Directory of Education (Personnel), Andaman & Nicobar Administration, VIP Road, Port Blair-744103. ... Respondents For the Applicant : Mr. B. Bhushan, Counsel For the Respondents : Mr. R. Halder, Counsel ORDER
Per Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member:
The applicants have approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following common relief in OA 351/00095/2019, OA 351/00120/2019 and OA 351/01385/2020:-
"a) Leave may be granted to the applicants to file this application jointly under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 as the applicants have a common grievance and all of them aggrieved against cancellation of the selection process those who are been declared successful in the same selection process for appointment to the post of primary school teacher.
byt "
16 0A 351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019
b) To quash and/or set aside the impugned Press Note Ory dated 11" January, 2019 being File No. 8-
10(1427)/Edn/CCB/PST-Rectt/2018 being Annexure-A-6 of this original application issued by the Deputy Director of Education (personnel) who is the incompetent authority by which the entire selection process for the post of primary school teacher has been cancelled without assigning any reason by depriving the present applicants those who have declared successful candidates and .their names were enlisted in the Merit List after fulfilling all the eligibility criteria prescribed by the Education Department in terms of the notification dated 16.07.2018.
c) To declare that the decision of the Education Department of Andaman and Nicobar Administration vide Press Note dated 11" January, 2019 is wholly arbitrary and iNegal because they themselves admitted in Press Note published on 19" December, 2018 in the Daily Telegrams _ that the process of recruitment to the post of primary school teacher has been conducted in a free, fair, transparent and objective manner. After such declaration by way of paper notification, the cancellation of the selection process to the post of primary school teacher is wholly arbitrary and illegally and which may be liable to be quashed and/or set aside in the eye of law by restoring the entire selection process in terms of the notification dated 16.07.2018 and to hold that the merit list which they have published is in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and on the basis of the assessment of marks obtained by them in terms of the Merit List the present applicants will get appointment.
d) To quash and/or set aside the cancellation order of selection process for recruitment to the post of primary school teacher and direct the respondent authority to issue the appointment orders in favour of the applicants those who are selected candidates and their names enlisted in the merit list to the post of primary school teacher immediately in terms of the recruitment notification dated 16.07.2018."
The applicant in OA 351/1570/2019 has prayed for the following relief :-
" a) Leave may be granted to the applicant to file this application jointly under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Administrative (Procedure) Rules, 1987 as the applicants have common grievances and common aggrieved.
hy "a ay, 17 0A 351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019
b) To quash and/or set aside the impugned order released under press note dated 11.01.2019 bearing File No. 8- 10(1427)/Edn./CCB/PST-Rectt./2018 (Annexure-6) issued by the Deputy Director of Education.
c) Direction upon the respondents to recall press note dated 11.01.2019 and 19.12.2018 as the process of recruitment was conducted in a free, fair and transparent manner.
d) Direction upon the respondents to issue forthwith appointment letter in favour of the applicants in the post of Primary School Teacher and accordance with merit list in the terms of recruitment notification dated 16.07.2018.
e) To pass such order or orders as may deem fit and proper."
2. The instant O.A.s primarily seek cancellation of the press note dated 11.01.2019 whereby the selection process for recruitment against vacancies in the post of Primary School Teachers vide notification dated 16.07.2018, was declared as cancelled.
3. Heard Ld. Counsel for both sides, examined pleadings, documents on record as well as those furnished during hearing. Written notes of arguments of Learned Counsel for the applicant are found on record in OA 351/1385/2020 (Deepa Mondal & Ors. vs. Education).
4, An M.A. bearing no. 350/704/2020 has been filed by applicants in OA No. 351/01385/2020 (Deepa Mondal & Ors. vs. Education) praying for liberty to jointly pursue such original application.
On being satisfied that the applicants share a common grievance and are pursuing a common cause of action, such liberty is granted under Rule 4(5)(a) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 subject to payment of individual court fees.
hos
--
18 0A 351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019 Od M.A. 351/00704/2020 is accordingly disposed of.
5. The dispute arises from a notification dated 16.7.2018 for filling up 224 vacancies for the post of primary school teacher, in different medium of instruction, with the following break up of vacancies:-
SI. Medium No. of Post Vacant No. Genl. OBC | ST Total
1. | Hindi 45 32 12 89
2. | English 46 32 12 90
3. | Bengali 28 17 -- 45 Total 119 81 24 : 224 | The selection process was based on self-assessments recorded by aspiring cy candidates in their application forms.
6. After publication of the provisional merit list for the post of PST on 17.12.2018, a large number of claims and objections were received from unsuccessful candidates consequent to which, a Two-Member Committee was constituted to examine the contents of such representations. The committee members, after detailed examination, concluded as follows:-
(a) Proof of having knowledge of Hindi was necessary only for Mainland candidates, and, that, a specific template should be issued to such candidates to enable them to certify that they fulfill the criteria to qualify for the post of PSTs (Hindi).
(b) That, as the recruitment rules does not specify the requirement of B.Ed.
qualification vis-a-vis NCTE regulations, there is a necessity to amend the recruitment rules which could be made prospectively applicable for future aspirants for the post of PST.
bk a"
C5:
19 OA 351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019
7. The respondents would submit that, as no standard template was annexed in the notification to certify the proficiency and knowledge of the concerned medium of instruction, a large number of ambiguities and inconsistencies arose as there was no standard process of screening. Further, as there were no objective guidelines to scrutinize the claims made on proficiency of medium of instruction, the scrutiny process jacked objectivity and standardization. In addition, respondents also admitted that the notification also did not allow receipt of additional documents from candidates, and hence the screening procedure was rendered largely incomplete.
8. In view of such inconsistencies and incongruities in the screening process, and, with the stated purpose to conduct a fair and transparent recruitment process, it was proposed to cancel the recruitment process for the post of Primary Teachers notified on 16.7.2018, and, accordingly, vide a press note dated 11.1.2019, the recruitment process was declared as cancelled.
9. The incumbents, who, however, were enlisted in the provisional merit list, had rushed to this Tribunal in O.A. No. 351/00095/2019 (Liton Baroi & ors. v.
Union of India & ors.) and O.A. No. 351/00120/AN/2019 (Abhishek Biswas & ors. Union of india & ors.) and this Tribunal, sitting singly, disposed of the applications by an order at the admission stage by directing as follows:-
(with supplied emphasis for clarity) "7, The applicants have also raised their grievance in their representation dated 16.1.2019 that their names appeared in the Merit List, which was published by the respondent authority themselves in their official website which has been annexed at Annexure A/3 of the Original Application, and they are waiting for issuance of appointment order for the post of Primary School Teacher in terms of the notification dated 16.7.2018 as per the commitment made by the respondent authority appearing at Annexure A/4 of the Original Application, which was published in.the Daily Telegrams hyo a"
10. 20 0A 351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019 Newspaper on 18.12.2018, and as per their declaration, which was also notified in the Daily Telegrams Newspaper dated 19" December, 2018 (Annexure A/5) of the Original Application that the process of recruitment to the post of Primary School Teacher has been conducted in a free, fair, transparent and objective manner. In view of such declaration made by the respondent authority themselves, which was published in the Daily Telegrams Newspaper and which is an official newspaper of the Andaman and Nicobar Administration, | am_of the view that as the names of the applicants already appeared in the Merit List published by the respondent authority being Annexure A/3 of the Original Application, therefore, the respondent authority are further directed to issue appointment orders in favour of the present applicants without any further delay. Mr. P.C. Das, Learned Counsel on behalf of the applicants also submitted that the respondent authority is going to re-advertise the post by cancelling the selection process. | have already held that_in_view_of the judqement_of Hon'ble Apex Court the impugned cancellation order of the selection process to the post of Primary School Teacher without assigning any reason is illegal; therefore, the question of re-advertising the post cannot be sustainable in the eye of law. | also make it clear that the entire exercise in respect of issuance of the appointment orders in favour of the applicants shall be completed within four (4) weeks from the date of communication of this order and | also make it clear that | have passed this order in respect of the 15 candidates, who are parties in this Original Application.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this O.A. has been disposed of. No costs."
Being aggrieved with such orders of this Tribunal, the official respondents approached the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) in WPCT No. 147/2020 in the matter of (The Lieutenant Governor and others vs. Shri Liton Baroi and others) and, in WPCT No. 146 of 2020 (The Lt. Governor & others v. Shri Abhisek Biswas and others) , whereupon, the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) set aside the orders of the Tribunal and passed the following orders:-
" On such consideration, we set aside the order of the learned Tribunal and direct the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh. The writ petitioners shall file their affidavit to the original application within two weeks from date disclosing all relevant document and/or records in support of their contentions. The said direction is peremptory. Reply, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Considering the fact that it is a recruitment process initiated in the year 2018 and some of the candidates may suffer age bar due to passage of time in the event the Tribunal allows the original application the Tribunal also shall take into consideration the age bar if any of the candidates and pass suitable orders to that effect. The Administration has also agreed that the age bar would not be a factor in the event the recruitment process is upheld.
hy "
11. 21 0A 351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019 We request the learned Central Administrative Tribunal to dispose of the original application preferably within four weeks from the date of completion of the pleadings.
The matter may be mentioned by the parties before the learned Tribunal for early disposal of the original application.
We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the order passed by the learned Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal but having considered that there may be come materials which ought to have been placed but not placed by the Administration for a proper and fair consideration of the issues involved in the matter in order to give an opportunity to the writ petitioners to produce all materials for a fair adjudication, the said order of the learned Judicial Member was set aside.
Re-advertisement shall remain stayed for the said post for a period of ten weeks or till the matter is finally decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal whichever is earlier."
The respondents would furnish the following factors in justification of re-
notification of vacancies to the post of Primary School Teacher:
(a) NCTE, Govt. of India vide Gazette of India Notification No. 246 dated 29/06/2018 has made the qualification of B.Ed. as one of the eligible qualification for appointment to the post of Primary School Teacher (PST). However, the prevalent Recruitment Rules for the post of PST does not have any provision for the same and hence there is a requirement for amendment of the RR in compliance to the communication of the NCTE.
(b) The Govt. of India has promulgated the 103 Constitutional Amendment providing 10% of the vacancies in the Civil posts for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) vide Office Memorandum No. 36089/1/2019-Estt (Res) dated 19/01/2019 which becomes operational from 1.2.2019 and hence there is a requirement to re-
classify the number of vacancies in the post of PST in compliance to the constitution amendment.
(c) That, candidates lower in merit surpassed those higher in order of merit on account of misinterpretation of medium disclosures.
(d) That, on account of such inadvertent misinterpretation, Tamil and Telegu medium candidates were allowed to apply for the post of PST (English Medium).
rw a 22 0A 351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019
12. Learned Counsel for the applicant would, refer to the following judicial pronouncements in support of his claim :-
(with supplied emphasis for clarity)
(a) In Sachin Kumar v. Delhi Subordinate Selection Board (DSSB) reported in (2021) 4 SCC 631, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as under :-
"A fair and reasonable process of selection to posts subject to the norm of equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) is a constitutional requirement. A fair and reasonable process is a fundamental requirement of Article 14 as well. Where the recruitment to public employment stands vitiated as a consequence of systemic fraud or irregularities, the entire process becomes illegitimate. On the other hand, where it is possible to segregate persons who have indulged in malpractices and to penalise them for their wrongdoing, it would be unfair to impose the burden of their wrong-doing on those who are free from taint. To treat the innocent and the wrong-doers equally by subjecting the former to the consequence of the cancellation of the entire process would be contrary to Article 14 because unequals would then be treated equally. The requirement that a public body must act in fair and reasonable terms animates the entire process of selection. The decisions of the recruiting body are hence subject to judicial control subject to the settled principle that the recruiting authority must have a measure of discretion to take decisions in accordance with law which are best suited to preserve the sanctity of the process."
(b) That, the observations made in Sachin Kumar (supra) echo those made in Joginder Pal v. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 644, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referring to its own judgment in Inderpreet Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab reported in (2006) 11 SCC 356, extracted the following principles :- hy "~ 23 0A 351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019 © " (a)...
(b)... When the services of employees are terminated inter alia on the ground that they might have aided and abetted corruption and, thus, either for the sake of probity in governance or in public interest their services should be terminated, the court must satisfy itself that conditions therefor exist. The court while setting aside a selection may require the State to establish that the process was so tainted that the entire selection process is liable to be cancelled. In a case of this nature, thus, the question which requires serious consideration is as to whether due to the misdeed of some candidates, honest and meritorious candidates should also suffer.
(c) A distinction exists between a proven case of mass cheating for a board examination and an unproven imputed charge of corruption where the appointment of a civil servant is involved. Only in the event it is found to be impossible or highly improbable that the tainted cases can be separated from the nontainted cases could en masse orders of termination be issued. Both the State Government as also the High Court in that view of the matter should have made all endeavours to segregate the tainted from the non-tainted candidates.
(d) ... [emphasis in the original]"
(c) Further reference is placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Anamica Mishra v. Public Service Commission, Allahabad reported in (1990) Supp. SCC 692 as cited in Sachin Kumar (supra) :-
The case is therefore representative of a situation where the cancellation of the entire recruitment process was held not to be justified since there was no systemic flaw in the written test, and the issue was only with regard to calling the candidates for the interview. The situation could have been remedied by setting aside the selection made after the interview stage and calling for a fresh interview of all eligible candidates. This is the ultimate direction which was issued by the Court. [emphasis supplied] hot a
24 0A 351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019 Learned Counsel for the applicant would therefore argue that, from the cases cited above and the observations made therein, it may be safely concluded that it is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that where a recruitment process is alleged to have been vitiated by malpractices or irregularities, every attempt should be made to separate the tainted candidates from the untainted ones. A decision to cancel the entire recruitment process should not ordinarily be taken as the same entails treating the tainted and untainted candidates alike which offends the right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Only where the malpractice or irregularity is systemic or chronic in nature that it is impossible or highly improbable to separate the tainted and untained candidates should a decision to cancel the entire recruitment process to be taken as a last resort and the recruiting authority should satisfy the adjudicating authority that it -- had made such effort and taken the decision only after such exercise proved to be impossible or highly improbable.
According to Learned Counsel, that, apart from the fact that no material has been produced by the Respondent authorities before this Tribunal which establishes that it had made any efforts at such segregation as required by law, the mere chronology of events makes the same highly improbable, if not impossible. Learned Counsel would allege that, as the process of publication of merit list to the cancellation of the recruitment process was carried out in a period of a little more than three weeks, whereby it is improbable that the Respondent authorities had considered any charges of corruption, and upon being convinced of its veracity, had made earnest attempts to segregate the Le a 25 0A351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019 tainted and untainted candidates and upon finding such a process to be virtually impossible, took an extreme decision to cancel the process, all within a time period of a little more than three weeks. And that, such cancellation reeks of administrative arbitrariness and bureaucratic high-handedness.
Learned Counsel would further agitate that, decisions to cancel recruitment process have been upheld in cases where there were instances of "mass-copying"
in written examinations as the same renders the possibility of segregation highly unlikely. As, there was no written examination in the instant case, the question of candidates indulging in "mass-copying" cannot arise.
Learned Counsel would refer to the settled principle that a candidate on the provisionally select list does not acquire a vested right to be appointed and that he has no reason to be aggrieved if the recruiting authority cancels the select list and resorts to a fresh selection process to state that the said assertion is often opposed to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.P. Aggarwal v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi reported in (2000) 1 SCC 600, wherein it as held as follows :-
"Wt is not therefore open to the Government to ignore the panel which, was already- approved and accepted by it and resort to a fresh, selection process without giving any proper reason for resorting to the same. It is not the case of the Government at any stage that the appellant is not fit to occupy the post. No attempt was made before the Tribunal or before this Court to place any valid reason for ignoring the appellant and launching a fresh process of selection. it is well settled that every State action, in order to survive, must not be susceptible i to the vice of arbitrariness which is the crux of Article 14 of the Constitution and har, a
26 0A 351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019 basic to the rule of law, the system which governs us. (vide Shrilekha Vidyarthi versus State.of U.P. (1991) 1 SCC 212)."
Learned Counsel for the applicant would further rely on the doctrine of legitimate expectations to refer to the judgement in State of Jharkhand v. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd. reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 968. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had elaborated on the doctrine of legitimate expectations, while referring to its own decision in NOIDA Entrepreneurs Assn. v. NOIDA, reported in (2011) 6 SCC 508, to come to the following conclusion :-
"41, Power vested by the. State in a public authority should be viewed as a trust coupled with duty to be exercised in larger public and social interest. Power is to be exercised strictly adhering to the statutory provisions and fact situation of a case. "Public authorities cannot play fast and loose with the powers vested in them." A decision taken in an arbitrary manner contradicts the principle of legitimate expectation. An authority is under a legal obligation to exercise the power . reasonably and in good faith to effectuate the purpose for which power stood conferred. In this context, "in good faith" means "for legitimate reasons". It must be exercised bona fide for the purpose and for none other..."
As such, we can see that the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation is one of the ways in which the guarantee of non-arbitrariness enshrined under Article 14 _ finds concrete expression. (emphasis supplied)"
Learned Counsel would expand that, in the instant case, the Applicants have acted on the instructions of the Respondent authorities. They had, at their own trouble and expense, acquired the educational qualifications required to be eligible for appointment as a Primary School Teacher in terms of the Recruitment Rules dated 7th March, 2011. They sat through the entire recruitment process, lat Zz
27 0A 351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019 and, when they had been provisionally selected, duly got their documents verified. As such, the applicants had every legitimate expectation of being appointed to the post. This legitimate expectation of the Applicants was breached by the Respondent authorities in an arbitrary and unjust manner by cancellation of the entire selection process.
Hence, in fine, the applicants would advance their claim on the following grounds :-
(a) That, as they are innocent of any wrong doing, they cannot be victimized on account of cancellation of the process and, that, they cannot be made to suffer on account of misdeeds of certain individuals.
(b) Applicants' counsel would further aver that, instead of cancelling the entire process, the respondents could have taken corrective steps at the appropriate stage of selection process.
(c) That, as there were no written examinations, the applicants cannot be held to be responsible for any irregula rities such as resort to unfair practices. |
(d) Applicants would also allege that the authorities had failed to provide any reasons to cancel the provisional panel and had on the other hand, attempted to advertise the vacancies afresh, and, that, such cancellation is not only arbitrary but also discriminatory against the applicants violating the principle of legitimate expectation of the applicants.
13. We have carefully considered the contentions of both Ld. Counsel, examined pleadings, documents and judicial pronouncement brought on record.
yt "a . : , . 28 0A 351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019 a"
o It is not the case of the respondents that the applicants have resorted to any malpractices in the selection process. Nor has it been alleged that irregularities in the process took place at the instance of the applicants.
The fault with the selection process thus lay not with the applicants but with the system of recruitment. The respondent authorities, rather shortsightedly, issued a notification, perhaps propelled by the need to fill up the large number of vacancies of primary school teachers, without the requisite clarity.
They were guided by the Recruitment Rules as under :-
1. | Name of Post Primary School Teacher 1792 (One thousand seven hundred ninety two) * 2011 *(Subject to variation dependent on workload)
2. | No. of Post(s) General Central Services Group 'B', Non-Gazetted, Non-Ministerial
3. | Classification Pay Band & Grade Pay/Pay Scale (PB-2) Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade Pay Rs. 4200 Whether selection post or non-
selection post Not applicable Age Limit for Direct recruits Not exceeding 30. years (Relaxable for Govt. Servants upto five years in accordance with the instructions or orders issued by the Central Govt.) (The crucial date for determining the age limit shall be the closing date for receipt of applications from the candidates in India and not the closing date prescribed for those in Assam, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland, Tripura, Sikkim, Ladakh, Division of Jammu & Kashmir State, Lahau! and Spiti, District and Pangi Sub-Division, Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep) Whether benefits of added years of service admissible under Rule 30 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972?
Not Applicable Educational and other qualifications prescribed for direct recruits
1. Senior Secondary School Certificate Examination | (XIt Std.) from a recognized Board/Institution and two years Diploma in Elementary Education of a recognized Institution OR Senior Secondary School Certificate Examination (Xt 4 A 2$ 0A351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019 Std.) from a recognized Board/Institution and two years Diploma in Education (Special Education) of a recognized Institution
2. Knowledge of Hindi
3. Should have studied in the concerned medium upto Secondary Level Note :-
1. For appointment of Primary School Teacher, the Degree/Diploma course in Teacher Education recognized by the National Council Teacher Education (NCTE) only shall be considered.
However, in case of Diploma in Education (Special Education) recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RC) shall be considered.
Desirable :-
1. Bachelor's Degree in any stream.
2. Three years teaching experience from a recognized Institution 9, | Whether age and other qualifications | Not applicable prescribed for direct recruits will apply in the case of promotees?
10. | Period of probation, if any 2 (two) years
11. | Method of recruitment whether | 100% by direct recruitment by direct or by deputation/ absorption and percentage of posts to be filled by various methods
12./In case of recruitment by} Not applicable promotion/deputation/absorption grades from which promotion/ deputation/ absorption to be made 13.11f a DPC exists, what is its | Group 'B' DPC (for confirmation) consisting of :-
composition? 1. Secretary (Education) , - Chairman A &N Administration
2. Director of Education, - Member A &N Islands
3. Principal, DIET, Garacharma - Member
4. Asst. Secretary (Perl.), - Member A & N Administration
14. | Circumstances in which UPSC is to | Not applicable be consulted in making the recruitment
15. | Duties and Responsibilities As attached to Annexure to the Schedule These Recruitment Rules of 2011 needed to spell out clearly as to what was the interpretation of "concerned medium upto secondary level". The authorities ought to have issued a standard template as an annexure to the recruitment hy, "
30 0A 351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019 notification so that the self-assessment on "concerned medium" ought to have followed a uniform pattern and not resulted in varied responses, rendering any realistic comparison of the merit of the candidates, difficult, if not impossible.
The applicants went by the book according to their understanding of concerned medium.
Those challenging the selection process as the applicants in OA 351/217/2019 (Sumonta Das & ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.}, OA 351/00023/2019 (Rinu Kumari Pandey vs. Union of India & Ors.), O.A. No. 351/01919/2018 (Smt. Tafsana Tabsum & 02 ors. v. Union of India & ors.), O.A. No. 351/01920/2018 (Shri B. Dhilli Rao & 03 ors. v. Union of India & ors.), O.A. No. 351/01923/2018 (Smt. Susnigdha Mondal & 03 ors. v. Union of india & ors.) and O.A. No. 351/01925/2018 (Smt. Uma Rani Roy & 03 ors. v. Union of India & ors.) also felt frustrated, as despite better academic results, they failed to qualify as they had responded differently in their self-assessment on medium of instructions.
14. It has been further argued that :-
(i) The NCTE (National-Council for Teacher Education) in its notification dated 23.08.2010 does not state that the candidates should have undertaken the | same medium for studies all through i.e. from Classes | to X.
(ii) That, according to National Council for Education Research & Training in its School Information Form-1 (SIF-I) vide Annexure-SIF-l, the medium of instruction is actually for Secondary level i.e. Classes IX & X. fat "a 31 OA 351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019
(iii) It is merit that rules the roost in public employment and cannot be compromised with by rejecting the person with higher merit than a person with less merit subject to the provisions in Article 16(1) and (4) of the Constitution of India.
(iv) And, that candidates may be asked to provide the following information on the medium of instructions :-
a) At secondary level i.e. Class IX & X, the main subject;
b) At Senior Secondary Level i.e. in Classes X! & XII, the main subject;
c) At CT ET level, the first language.
15. In their judgements in Banarsidas vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1956 SC 520), Basic Education Board U.P. Vs. Upendra Rai (2008 (3) SCC 432), Mangej Singh vs. Union of India (1998 (9) SCC 471), Surinder Singh vs. UOI (2007 (11) SCC 599), O.P. Lather vs Satish Kumar Kakkar (2001) 3 SCC 110 : AIR 2001 SC 821, The Post Graduate Institute vs. Dr. J. B. Dilawari, AIR 1988 SC 1348 : JT 1988 (2) SC 207, and, in V. K. Sood vs. Secretary, Civil Aviation, (AIR 1993 AC 2285 at 2288), the Hon'ble Apex Court has cautioned that Courts and Tribunals, not being experts, should not intervene and impose their view in prescribing on essential qualifications for recruitment.
These cancellations therefore calls for a relook at the Recruitment Rules for primary teachers in the respondent administration, particularly as to what is the exact definition of "concerned medium of instruction upto the secondary level"
and what is the NCTE's current mandate on teachers' training.
ang ao oo 32 0A 351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019
16. Accordingly, this Tribunal would direct the respondent authorities as follows :-
(a) A committee be set up within 2 weeks of date of receipt of this order, under the Chairmanship of respondent no. 1, Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development. The Committee should include a linguist and a representative of NCTE. Secretary (Education), Andaman & Nicobar Administration, respondent no. 4, will be the Member- convener of such Committee. The respondent no. 1, Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, however, is at liberty to coopt any other member, if so deemed fit.
(b) The Committee, after its formation, should primarily determine as to what should be the essential qualifications in recruitment rules for primary school teachers in a Union Territory such as Andaman & Nicobar Islands, particularly on the criteria of medium of instructions and Teachers' training. The Committee will need to examine the following scenario :-
(i) Whether the notification dated 16.07.2018 adequately reflected the contents of Recruitment Rules 2011, and, if so, whether the self assessments on medium of instructions of the candidates in the provisional list was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules.
(ii) In the absence of any standard template on disclosure on medium of instructions, whether the non-selected candidates with meritorious academic records were arbitrarily deprived of selection.
bot "a 33 0A351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019
(iii) Whether, further documentation should be called for from all participating candidates so as to decide on the most meritorious and deserving candidates on the basis of realistic self assessments.
(iv) Whether the Recruitment Rules themselves call for an amendment, and, if so, whether requirements of NCTE mandate should have prospective effect.
The committee is at liberty to draw up additional terms of reference to realistically report in this situation.
The Committee will finalize its report within 12 weeks of the date of its formation.
(c) Once so finalized, the report shall, thereafter, be submitted to the office of respondent no. 2, namely the Lieutenant Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands. The said respondent no. 2 shall, thereafter, decide as to whether the Committee's report support such interpretation of the recruitment notification dated 16.07.2018 , according to which the provisional recruitment results were published on 17.12.2018 (annexed as Annexure-A/3 to the OA) . In such event, after acceptance of such report by the Lieutenant Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, respondent no. 2, the-provisional select list should be made absolute within a further period of 8 weeks, and appointment orders should follow thereafter, subject to observance of requisite formalities.
If , however, the committee is of the opinion that additional documents should be called from all candidates to verify self assessment with the hy "a 34 0A 351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019 interpretation (supra), all candidates would be liable to furnish the same, if so . directed prior to any further action on the provisional select list.
7 (d) On the other hand, if it is reported that the interpretation of medium of instructions up to secondary level indeed differs from the interpretation contained in self-assessments which had led to provisional selection of candidates .as at Annexure-A/3 to the OA, the cancellation of such selection process would be made absolute.
(e) The Recruitment Rules shall be amended accordingly and notified as per law within 12 weeks of confirmation of cancellation of the selection process.
(f) The respondent authorities shall, thereafter, issue a fresh vacancy notification for primary school teachers in accordance with the amended Recruitment Rules, within their jurisdiction, clearly clarifying what would be the requirements of medium of instructions through prescription of a standard template without leaving any further scope for ambiguity in this matter.
(g) In the event the candidates whose provisional selection stood cancelled by the press note dated 11.01.2019 (annexed at Annexure-A/6 to the OA) as well as other candidates who appeared in the earlier selection process notified in July, 2018 (but who had failed to qualify in the same successfully), apply against such vacancy notification, they should not be debarred on account of overage and should be accorded the appropriate age relaxation with reference to their age while applying for vacancy notification dated 16.07.2018.
hin a 35 0A 351/95/2019, OA 351/120/2019, OA 351/1385/2020 & OA 351/1570/2019
(h) In the event recruitment to primary school teachers' in the respondent administration is notified afresh, the respondent authorities are at liberty to process the consequent selection process in accordance with rules, and, after completion of such process, the final results should be published within a period of 20 weeks from the date of such notification.
'17. (0.4. No. 351/00095/2019 (Liton Baroi & Ors. vs. Education) read with M.A No. 351/00191/2021 , O.A. No. 351/00120/2019 (Abhisekh Biswas & Ors. vs. Education) read with M.A. No. 351/00192/2021, OA No. 351/01570/2019 (Surajit Kumar Malo & Ors. vs. Education) read with M.A. No. 351/00012/2022 praying for addition of parties and O.A. No. 351/01385/2020 (Deepa Mondal & Ors. vs. Education) are disposed of.
MA 351/00704/2020 arising out of OA 351/01385/2020 (Deepa Mondal & Ors. vs. Education), stands as disposed of as per para 4 of this order.
18. OAs and MAs are disposed of accordingly.
No costs.
4 LN (Dr. Nandita Chatterjee) (Bidisha Banerjee) Administrative Member Judicial Member en aa sl