No Change In Essential Qualification Or Disqualification Can Be Made During Subsistence Of The Said Recruitment, Says Kolkata High Court.

CAUSE TITLE:

Animesh Singha Mahapatra & Or’s V. State of West Bengal & OR’s

DATE OF ORDER:

24 April 2024

JUDGES:

Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee

PARTIES TO THE CASE:

Animesh Singha Mahapatra State of West Bengal

SUBJECT:

Candidates appearing for the 12th regional level selection test failed to qualify due to not receiving marks against their training qualification. Therefore they challenged the decision of the council and further sought a directive to provide the merited results.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Article 226 - Power of High Courts to issue certain writs – high court has the power to issue writs and directives throughout the areas it enjoys jurisdiction over.

BRIEF FACTS

1. Petitioners appeared for the 12th regional level selection test for the posts of assistant teacher in junior high/high/higher secondary schools in west Bengal.
2. Petitioners contended that despite securing the necessary qualification for the post they were not awarded the six marks against their training qualifications.
3. Hence, the petitioners filed the current writ petition.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the petitioners should be awarded six marks for their training qualifications to potentially alter the final selection outcome.
2. Whether a previous court ruling regarding the equivalence of D.El.Ed. degree for teacher positions applies to the present case.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY PETITIONER

1. Mr. Chakraborty the learned counsel for petitioners, stated that petitioners had all the desirable qualifications which were prescribed by the notification for candidates under the honors/PG category.
2. Opposing the validity of the notifications issued by the council, the petitioner stated that all notifications were issues prior to the issuance of the advertisement for the vacancy.
3. Further laying emphasis on the case of Sova Rani Mondal v. State of West Bengal & Or’s. And Manish Ghosh & ors vs. state of west Bengal & ors. Which were held by the honeble division bench of this wherein the court held that PTT training along with one year Bridge course is equivalent to the 2-year course of diploma in elementary education (D. Ed. Ed)

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENTS

1. Opposing the counsel for petitioner’s view in the case of Sova Rani Mondal’s, the respondent held that according to them in the case it was held that under the honors/PG category, D. Ed. Ed will not be held equivalent to the terms of clause 4.

ANALYSIS OF JUDGEMENT

1. The honorable court stated that, once the recruitment process has commenced by publishing an advertisement, no modification of the essential qualifications or deprivation of qualifications may be made during the period of said advertisement unless such power is provided in the  advertisement itself or reserved in  other rules.
2. The court directed the Commission to award 6 marks to specific petitioners who met the training qualification criteria and obtained 55% or more marks.
3. The Commission was instructed to act based on a decision by the Principal Secretary on the matter. If the Principal Secretary determines that candidates under the Honors Category are entitled to marks for their training qualifications, the Commission must take appropriate action within one month.

CONCLUSION

The court's decision in this case aims to redress perceived discrepancies in the selection process and protect the right of applicants who meet the specified criteria to obtain additional points based on their qualifications their level.