Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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."

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).