Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Referring further to the aforementioned judgment, he submitted that it would be apparent from the submissions made by the learned Advocate General before the Court in that matter that in view of the instructions of NCTE it was clear that State recognised institutions which had imparted primary teachers' training, without obtaining affiliation or recognition under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, upto 2004-05, could not be treated as having imparted training illegally. In any case, the students who had prosecuted their studies and obtained certificates from such institutes prior to the date of the final judgment in Tulsi Baksi's case, were not visited with adverse consequences and nor were they required to surrender their certificates. He thus, submitted that the submission of the learned Advocate General, to the effect that the students who had already obtained their Primary Teachers' Training Certificates prior to the judgment in Tulsi Baksi's case, could not be visited with any adverse consequences, was a clear pointer to the fact that the State Government's stand in respect of such students was unambiguous and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the writ petitioner could not be deprived of the 22 marks, which she was otherwise entitled to get, on the basis of her Primary Teachers' Training Certificate.

In this regard, he relied on paragraph 10 of the judgment and order dated 26th February, 2010, wherein the submissions of the learned Advocate General was recorded by the Division Bench, which reads as under:

"10. Without prejudice to the above submission, the learned Advocate General has submitted that in view of the instructions of NCTE, it was clear that State recognized institutions which had imparted training in primary teachers training, without obtaining affiliation or recognition under the NCTE Act, up to 2004-05 could not be treated as having imparted training illegally. In any case, the students who had prosecuted their studies obtained certificates from the institutions prior to the date of the judgement 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 judgement in Tulsi Baksi's case could not be treated as disqualified for the post of primary teachers."

Learned Advocate General, thereafter, proceeded to refer to the subsequent Public Interest Litigation which was filed before this Court being, WP No.23077(W) of 2009 (Hiranmoy Bhowmik -Vs- State of West Bengal and others), wherein it was prayed, inter alia, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for cancelling the appointments of those primary teachers who had been so appointed between 1998 and 2005, as per the Rules prevalent at that time, which provided, inter alia, grant of the ratio of 22 marks for training based on Primary Teachers' Training Certificates. He submitted that it was the contention of the writ petitioner therein that undue favour was shown to the candidates possessing Primary Teachers' Training Certificates, since they could possibly have come within the zone of selection process, had the ratio of 22 marks for training qualifications not been granted. In short, grievance of the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 23077(W) of 2009 was that in Tulsi Baksi's judgment, it has been declared that the institutes which were granted affiliation by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education, under the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973, were set up illegally and consequently the writ petitioner claimed that certificates issued by the said institutes were void and no marks on the basis of such certificates could be given and as such, the petitioner sought cancellation of appointments. Learned Advocate General, thus, submitted that the object of filing the Public Interest Litigation was to seek cancellation of employment of those primary teachers who were already appointed and who obtained such appointments as primary teachers on the strength of their certificates and marks allotted to them on of the basis of Recruitment Rules of 2001. He further submitted that the said writ petition was dismissed on merits by an order dated 26th February, 2010, by the Division Bench of this Court presided over by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice. Referring to the stand taken by him before the Division Bench of this Court in the above matter, he submitted that such stand was relevant in the facts of the case, especially after Tulsi Baksi's case, which was concerned only with the academic session of 2005-06, as requisitions were sent by the respective District Primary School Councils for sponsoring of all eligible candidates by the Employment Exchanges. Such a stand was taken considering the fact that no challenge was raised by anybody to the recruitment of those candidates who prosecuted their training qualification up to the academic session of 2004-2005 in the institutes not recognized by NCTE and as a result of which, the recruitment process stood completed. The recruitment process concerning candidates upto the academic session of 2004-05 having been completed prior to that, the same was not and could not have been the subject matter of Tulsi Baksi's case. It was in those circumstances, he had submitted on behalf of the State in that matter that the training which was imparted to persons aspiring to be primary teachers and who have already been recruited by the respective District Primary School Councils, could not be said to be illegal and those appointed/recruited on the basis of such certificates, could not be visited with any adverse consequences nor were they required to surrender their certificates.

Referring to the instant case, learned Advocate General submitted that the grievance of the writ petitioner was that she obtained the certificate of Primary Teachers' Training after studying in Khamargachi Primary Teachers' Training Institute, Burdwan, in the year 2005, and was certified as a trained candidate. In the year 2006, pursuant to her sponsorship by the Employment Exchange, she had submitted bio-data/testimonials for the post of Primary Teacher before the Burdwan District Primary School Council and by reason thereof, the said Council issued her an admit card for participating in the written test which was scheduled on 29th November, 2009, for the 2006 slot. It was her grievance that the recruitment authority, in considering her training certificate under the un-amended Rules of 2001, had not allotted 22 marks which she was entitled to receive. She, thus, challenged the recruitment process. Learned Advocate General submitted that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in Tulsi Baksi's case, declaring the Primary Teachers' Training Institutes as illegal and unauthorisedly set-up, the selectors could not have given 22 marks to the writ petitioner, as granting such marks to the writ petitioner or any other candidate who stood in the same footing as that of the writ petitioner, would have amounted to wilful and deliberate violation of the judgment of the Division Bench in Tulsi Baksi's case. He submitted that the said judgment and order was operating in full force and vigour in so far as the declaration of the Court was concerned that such institutes, which were set-up under the State Act of 1973, were so done illegally and unauthorisedly and in violation of the constitutional mandate. He further submitted that the District Primary School Council, Burdwan, being the concerned authority, in its wisdom refrained from granting 22 marks in deference to the judgment of the Division Bench passed in the case of Tulsi Baksi's case. He submitted that if the State Government or the authority concerned granted such marks, then the same would have been an affront and in violation of the judgment of the Division Bench passed in Tulsi Baksi's case. He then, once again, referred to the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of West Bengal before the Supreme Court, being SLP (Civil) 28977 of 2009, against the said judgment and order of the Division Bench and submitted that the State of West Bengal has failed to obtain any stay of that portion of the declaration contained therein.