Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)Shyamal Barman & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 July, 2017Author:Arijit BanerjeeBench:Arijit Banerjee1


5    21.07.                     AST 186 of 2017
ns    2017
                           Shyamal Barman & Ors.
                                    -Versus-
                        The State of West Bengal & Ors.


              Ms. Suman Schenabis (Mondal)
                                     ...              for the Petitioners.

              Mr. Abhijit Gangopadhyay,
              Mr. Kanak Kiran Bandyopadhyay,
                                          ...                for the SSC.

              Mr. Pinaki Dhole
              Mr. Debashis Sarkar          ...           For the State.


                       The applicable rules pertaining to eligibility for

              the post of Headmaster in 2012 was that the candidate

              was required to have secured at least 40% marks in

              Post Graduate Examination and the candidate was

              required to have at least ten years' experience as

              teacher. New Rules were introduced regarding eligibility

              for the post of Headmaster in March 2015 whereunder

              the experience of ten years remained unchanged as also

              the 40% marks remained unchanged.           In September

              2016, further fresh Rules were introduced whereunder

              the required teaching experience remained ten years

              but the requisite marks were enhanced from 40% to

              45% in the Post Graduate Examination.           Again, in

              March 2017 the Rules were amended and the required
                               2


marks was enhanced to 50%.

            The petitioners contend that they became

eligible for the post of Headmaster prior to the

amendment      of     2017.        Had    the   examination       for

appointment to the post of Headmaster been held prior

to the amendment of 2017, they would have been

entitled to participate in the examination since the

requisite marks under the old Rules was 45 per cent.

They submit that the 2017 amendment is wholly

unreasonable and arbitrary and cannot affect the vested

right that has accrued in their favour.                 They have

challenged the vires of the 2017 Amendment.

            I have also heard the learned Government

Advocate.      I    cannot        possibly   disagree    with     his

submission     that    fixing      the   eligibility   criteria   for

recruiting teachers is within the exclusive domain of the

administration and the Court shall not easily interfere.

After all, the quality of the education to be imparted

would depend on the quality of the teaching staff and it

is in the interest of everybody concerned that the

quality of the teaching staff is of a minimum standard.

However, if certain amendments are made arbitrarily

and unreasonably, the Court has the power to strike
                          3


down the same. On this point, the learned Government

Advocate does not join issue.     However, this question

has to be gone into at the final hearing of the writ

petition.

            By way of an interim measure, since the last

date for applying online was 17th July, 2017, and the

writ petition was affirmed and mentioned on that date

itself, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of

the parties, I permit the petitioners to apply offline since

her application may not be accepted online.             The

respondent nos.3 and 4 are directed to accept suchapplication of the petitioners if made on or before 24th

July, 2017. However, the petitioners shall not sit the

examination without the leave of this Court.            The

petitioners shall also deposit the requisite court fees in

course of today.Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within a

fortnight from date.      Reply thereto, if any, be filed

within a week thereafter.List the matter before the appropriate Bench

three weeks hence.This order shall not be treated as a precedent

and shall not create any equity in favour of the4petitioners.Let   a   plain   copy   of   this   order,   duly

countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be

handed over to the learned advocate-on-record for the

petitioners on usual undertaking.( Arijit Banerjee, J. )