Aloka Ghosh vs State of West Bengal

Pratap Kumar Ray, J.—Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

In this writ application the Petitioner has prayed for the following relief�s:

(a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to do their duty in accordance with law and to direct the Respondents to include the Petitioner''s name in the panel and issue appointment letter of primary teacher of any school of Midnapore District as she is a qualified candidate and as she fulfilled all the conditions in the interview held on 29.11.98.

(b) A writ of and/or in the nature of certiorari calling upon the Respondents to certify and transmit to this Hon''ble Court entire records of the case and impugned panel prepared by the Respondents including the marks obtained by the paneled candidates in the year 1999.

(c) To issue Rule in the nature of prohibition not to cancel the name of your Petitioner from the preparation of panel as a primary teacher of Midnapore District on the basis of interview held on 29.11.98 and the marks obtained by the Petitioner from mark-sheets and from other activities.

(d) To issue a writ or writs and/or order or orders and direction or directions to enlist the name of your Petitioner in the preparation of panel as a Primary teacher in the District Midnapore, Primary School Council at Midnapore.

The facts leading to the writ application are as follows:

The Petitioner''s name was sponsored for selection in the post of Primary School Teacher by the District Primary School Council, Midnapore (hereinafter referred to as the ''concerned Primary School'') on the basis of the academic marks and the eligible training qualification. The Petitioner appeared in the interview but thereafter could not succeed for empanelment of her name in the final panel. The Petitioner moved with this grievance earlier about non-appointment in the post of Assistant Teacher when by the order dated June 7, 1996 N.K. Mitra, J. (as His Lordship then was) in CO. No. 4249 (W) of 1996 directed the Primary School Council to pass a reasoned order with reference to the grievance of the Petitioner. The said District Primary School Council considered the matter and by his decision as communicated under Memo No. 5260/2/L.A. dated November 11, 1997 disposed of the grievance of the Petitioner by rejecting the same on the ground that she could not succeed in the interview for such selection. This writ application has been opposed by the Primary School Council by filing affidavit and by the State Government without filing any affidavit.

It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that the Primary School Council did not consider the Balsevika Training Certificate issued by the Indian Council for Child Welfare as a training qualification to allot marks as per the Recruitment and Leave Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Recruitment Rules) applicable to the selection of the Primary Teachers in terms of Notification No. 768-Edn. (P) dated November 22, 1991. It is submitted that for training qualification the Petitioner was entitled to get 20 marks under Rule 9(b)(ii) of the said Rules. Had there been allotment of marks for Balsevika Training Certificate, the Petitioner would have succeeded to be enlisted in the panel. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that Balsevika Training though was not coming under the definition of 2(n) of the said Recruitment Rules but under the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Primary Education Act for brevity), the Indian Council for Child Welfare is a recognised Institution as per definition of Junior Basic Training Institution as appearing under definition 2(xi) of the Primary Education Act. The Petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, and Article 257 of the Constitution of India to submit that a training certificate issued by the authority of Central Government should be given effect to by the State Government. The learned Advocate for the Primary School Council placed his argument with reference to the Recruitment Rules by contending, inter alia, that under Rule 2(n) the qualification of Balsevika Training Certificate has not been considered as equivalent training qualification of Junior Basic Training / Primary Teachers Training Certificate. It is further contended that such Balsevika Training Certificate only has been considered as a valid qualification for appointment of teachers in the pre-basis school and not in the primary school in terms of G.O. No. 3302A-Edn. (D) dated October 9, 1964. It is further contended that said training qualification cannot be equivalent and hence the Council did not allot any marks for Balsevika Training Course. The learned Advocate appearing for the State Government also supported the views of the Council. Having regard to the submissions of the parties, I consider the only point for adjudication in this case as emerged as to whether Balsevika Training Certificate would be considered as a training qualification in terms of Rule 2(n) of-the Recruitment Rules arid thereby whether the same would fetch the marks of 20 in terms of Rule 9(b) (ii) of the said Rules. For adjudication of the said matter the relevant Rule is required to be considered. u/s 106 of the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973, ''Recruitment and Leave Rules for appointment of the Primary School Teachers'' as well as their service conditions were framed and constituted by Notification No. 768-t.dn. (P) dated November 22, 1991. "One Rule as framed was titled as Rules regulating the Recruitment and Leave of Teachers in Primary School in West Bengal.

The said Recruitment Rule provides under Rule 2(n) the meaning of trained candidates which reads as follows:

2(n). ''Trained Candidate'' means a candidate who has obtained a Junior Basic Training / Primary Teachers'' Training Certificate or equivalent issued under the authority of the Director of any other officer empowered in this behalf.

Under the selection procedure of the said Rule 9(b)(ii) and (iv) provides the allotment of marks under the different qualifications, which reads thus:

9(b)(ii).- the full marks shall be allotted to four different aspects of the candidate''s eligibility in the following manner:

Academic qualification 65 marks

Training 20.marks

Written Test/Oral Inverview 10 marks

Co-curricular Activity 5 marks

Total 100 marks

(iv). the percentage of marks to the total full marks obtained in Junior Basic Training Certificate Examination or equivalent shall be computed as percentage of 20 (twenty) and recorded in the score sheet ;

Under Rule 9(c) procedure has been made about allotment of the marks, preparation of the panel for candidates who would be called for the interview on the basis of the marks of academic qualification, training and co-curricular activities, as well as holding of interview and allotment of marks for the final empanelment of the candidates.

Rule 9(c) reads under (i), (ii)and (iii) as follows:

9(c)(i).- The total marks obtained by each candidate for academic qualification, training and co-curricular activities shall be computed in the manner prescribed in Clauses (ii),(iv) and (vi), and a list of names, of all candidates of each category, namely, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, physically handicapped and others shall be prepared in descending order of total marks obtained by them ;

(ii).- The Staff Selection Committee, in its meeting shall finalize the total number of candidates from the top of the lists mentioned in Clause (i) of Sub-rule (c), to be called for interview. The number of candidates to be called for interview shall be five times the number of vacancy unless the total number of candidates is insufficient for the same;

(iii).- The candidates selected for interview shall be intimated the date, time and place for their interview.

Under Rule 9(d) and (e) procedure were prescribed for addition of the marks for academic, training and extracurricular activities as well as interview and thereby to prepare a final panel to fill up the vacancy. The said provision reads as follows:

9(d).- After the ''interview-''all the scores shall be recorded and the marks obtained by a candidate shall be added up and the names of candidates shall be arrange according to marks obtained in a descending order;

(e).- After the process as laid down in Sub-rule (b) is complete, the Selection Committee shall arrange the names serially down from the top of the list. A penal of such number of candidates as there are vacancies plus 10% of such vacancies shall be prepared. The reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and physically handicapped persons shall have to be strictly maintained in the panel. The panel shall show separately names of Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste, Physically Handicapped, and other eligible candidates.

Under the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973, training qualification has not been defined but the Junior Basic Training Institution has been defined under definition clause Section 2(xi) which reads thus:

Section 2(xi).- Junior Basic Training Institution includes a Primary Training School and a Senior Teachers'' Training. School for woman recognised by the Director;

Under the Recruitment Rules trained candidates have been defined, under Rule 2(n) as already referred to and the word ''trained candidates means'' was used in lieu of word ''trained candidates includes''. When in a statute, the word ''means'' is used to define something in lieu of the words ''includes'', the definition to be looked into and read by the Court as a hard and fast definition without any scope of further interpretation. The question cropped up before the Apex Court wherein the statute prescribed the word ''to define something'' by using the word ''means'' and the Apex Court held that when under a statute to define something, the word ''means'' is used, there is no scope to have any different interpretations by the Court save and except to accept those qualifications or those actions as have been covered under the definition clause by using the word ''means''. Reliance may be placed to the judgment of the Constitution Bench passed in the ease Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and Others, . I am tempted to quote para 72 of the said citation, which reads thus:

The definition has used the word ''means''. When a statute says that a word or phrase shall ''mean''-not merely that it shall ''include''- certain things or acts, ''the definition is a hard-and-fast definition, and no other meaning can be assigned to the expression than is put down in definition''(per Esher, M.R. Gough v. Gough). A definition is an explicit statement of the full connotation of a team.

That judgment though was passed by the Apex Court while interpreting Section 2(bb)(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, where to define the word ''retrenchment'', the word ''means'' was used, but the principle of. law as considered for interpreting a statutory provision where statute defines a word by using the word ''means'' is squarely applicable in the instant case. Having regard to such, I am of the view under the Recruitment Rule 2(n) trained candidates when have been defined by word ''means'', that defination is final and there is no scope to interpret otherwise as has been argued by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner. Under the definition clause of trained candidate it only means that the candidate who obtained Junior Basic Training or Primary Teachers Training Certificate or any equivalent certificate issued under the authority of the Director or any other officer empowered on that behalf by the Government. The word-''Government'' ''as been defined as the Government of West Bengal under Rule 2(h) of the said Recruitment Rules. Hence, from the definition clause of trained candidates it appears that only those certificates as were declared as equivalent by the Director which means the Director of School Education, West Bengal in terms of Rule 2(h) of the Recruitment Rules or by any officer empowered by the State Government, only would be considered as equivalent to certificate of Junior Basic Training/Primary Teachers Training. The Balsevika Training Certificate as issued by the Indian Council for Child Welfare is of one year training course. This certificate was not accepted as equivalent certificate for Junior Basic Training and Primary Teachers Training either by the Director of School Education, West Bengal or by any officer of the State Government. On the contrary it appears that the State Government through its Secretary, Education Department issued a G.O. No. 3302-A. Edn. (D) dated October 9, 1964 whereby Balsevika Training Certificate was recognised by the State Government as a training certificate for appointment as teacher in Pro-basic School. It is an admitted position that the concerned school is not a Pre-basic school but a Primary School. Pre-basic School has not been Included under the Primary Education Act, 1973 as it appears from the definition of the Primary School under 2(j) of Recruitment Rules, which reads as follows:

2(j).- ''Primary School'' means a school or a department of a school giving instruction in primary education established, and recognised under the Act, as a primary School, and includes a junior basic school:

From the aforesaid; definition it appears that Primary School means ''a primary school under the recognised Act'' and a Junior,; Basic School''. A Junior Basic School is not equivalent to a Pre-basic school. Under the Act Primary School has been defined under definition Clause u/s 2(xviii), which reads as follows:

2(xviii).- ''Primary School'' means a school or a department of a school giving instruction in primary education recognised or deemed to be recognised as a primary school under this Act, (and includes a Junior Basic school).

Hence, it is clear that the Government of West Bengal through its authorised officer never recognised Balsevika Training Certificate as equivalent to certificate to the courses of Junior Basic Training and/ or Primary Teachers training.

Hence, in view of the statutory provision as already referred to under Rule 2(n) of the Recruitment Rules there was no scope to grant any marks for Balsevika Training Certificate by the Primary School Council as the said certificate for appointment of a primary school teacher under the Act.

It is not a settled legal position that when in a statute and Rules as framed thereto a particular provision has been made accepting certain qualification, the Court will not venture to test the equivalency of another qualification with reference to those qualifications as prescribed in a statute. The Court is not an expert Body to define a particular degree or course as equivalent to another degree or course due to lack of ex parties in the matter and due to the reason that the same should be better judged by academic body. This point has been considered by the Apex Court on issue whether the Court will venture to decide the question of equivalency of a certificate with reference to another certificate and/or a degree in the case Tariq Islam Vs. Aligarh Muslim University and Others, . The Apex Court in para. 7 held as follows:

It is wise and sage for the courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problem they face�.;

The equivalence of a qualification pertains purely to an academic matter and courts would naturally hesitate to express a definite opinion, particularly when it appears that the equivalent has already been considered and declared By it.

Having regard to that settled law since the Education Department of the Government of West Bengal by his Memo dated October 9, 1964 has already decided that the Balsevika Training Certificate awarded by the Indian Council for Child Welfare would be considered as training certificate only for appointment of teachers in ''pre-basic school'', the argument of the learned Advocate inviting; this Court to consider the equivalency of Balsevika Training Certificate is beyond the scope of this Court. Having regard to the judgment of the Apex Court, this Court accordingly cannot venture to define the said certificate as equivalent to the Primary Basic, Training Certificate when already such decision has been reached by the Government of West Bengal through its Education Department, an expert Body, refusing to consider the same as training qualification for primary school teachers and/or for the teachers of Junior Basic School. For a teacher of a primary school the appropriate training qualification is a very vital issue for development. Unless a training qualification satisfies the prescribed training qualification, the students of primary school would suffer. It has been settled by the Apex Court by several judgments about the utility of proper training qualification to impart education to the students of primary section. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Ramsukh v. State of Rajasthan (1989) Suppl. 2 S.C.C. 189 in the following terms:

Primary School teachers are of utmost importance for development of child personality. It is not enough to teach alphabets and figures but much more is required to understand child''s psychology and aptitude. They need a different approach. Only trained teachers could lead them properly.

Further in another case the Apex Court considered the importance of proper training qualification for the primary school teachers in the case Andhra Kesari Educational Society Vs. Director of School Education and Others, . It has been held by. the Apex Court in the following term:

Teachers should be subjected to rigorous training with rigid scrutiny of efficiency. Ill-trained teachers/ sub-standard teachers would be detrimental to our education system, if not punishment to our children.

Having regard to the aforesaid views of the Apex Court and the statutory provision as has been considered, this Court is of the view that non-consideration of qualification Balsevika Training Certificate as a certificate of training qualification and thereby refusal to allot marks on such by the Primary School Council was justified.

In that view of the matter, the impugned decision cannot be said as illegal and arbitrary decision for judicial review by this Court.

Accordingly this writ application stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.