Bimal Chandra Mondal vs The State of West Bengal & Ors.

A memo dated October 16, 2015 issued by the District

Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Purulia approving a

panel of the post of Assistant Headmaster of Gobindapur High

School is under challenge at the behest of one of the panelists.

Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the

petitioner participated in a selection process for the purpose of

appointment of Assistant Headmaster of the School. The selection

committee recommended a panel for the purpose of consideration of the managing committee. The petitioner was the first empanelled

candidate in such selection process. The panel, with the petitioner

as the first empanelled candidate, was sent by the managing

committee to the District Inspector of Schools, for approval. The

District Inspector of Schools while granting the approval, by the

impugned memo, reorganized the panel and granted approval to the

appointment of the third empanelled candidate as appearing in the

panel approved by the managing committee. He submits that, the

District Inspector of Schools does not have such a power. He relies

upon a memo bearing No. 1628-GA dated July 10, 2002 and 2012

Volume 2 Calcutta High Court Notes (Cal) page 644 ( Dev

Prasad Sarker v. State of West Bengal & Ors .) in support of

such contentions. He also relies upon an unreported decision of the

Court rendered in W.P. No. 19757 (W) of 2007 dated September 12,

2007 ( Kakali Bandyopadhyay v. State of West Bengal & Ors .)

in support of such contentions.

Learned Advocate appearing for the State submits that, the

petitioner does not have the requisite qualification to be granted

approval to the post of Assistant Headmaster. The District Inspector

of Schools had given approval to one of the panelist who has a better academic qualification and experience in service than that of

the petitioner. The District Inspector of Schools had deducted the

marks granted in favour of the participants in accordance with law.

After such deduction, the private respondent whose appointment to

the post of Assistant Headmaster has been approved by the District

Inspector of Schools, is entitled to be granted such an approval.

Reliance is placed on the memo dated July 10, 2012 particularly

clause 3(C), (D) and (E) of such memo.

Learned Senior Advocate for the private respondent submits

that, the private respondent is better qualified both educationally

and experience wise than the petitioner. The petitioner should not

have been placed as the first empanelled candidate by the selection

committee. The selection committee has overlooked the relevant

consideration at the time of preparation of the panel. In the event,

the panel as prepared by the selection committee is approved by the

District Inspector of Schools then, the authorities would be placing

premium upon a person obtaining the higher qualification without

the requisite process of law as against a person who obtains such

higher qualification by following the law. According to him, the

petitioner obtained the higher qualification without the due process of law and, therefore, such higher qualification cannot be counted

for the purpose of award of marks in the selection process. Such

marks, if deducted, then the private respondent is the first

empanelled candidate in the selection process. Therefore, the

District Inspector of Schools did not err in recasting the panel and

granting approval in accordance with the recast panel.

Dev Prasad Sarker (supra) is of the view that, even though

an Assistant Teacher does not enjoy the Master Degree scale then

also his Master Degree qualification cannot be ignored by the

selection committee while preparing the panel for the post of

Assistant Teacher in a Government aided secondary school. There

are two circulars which appear to govern the field. One is a memo

No. 1353-GA dated June 21, 2012 which says that, awarding of

marks for Post Graduate qualification would tantamount to

recognizing the enhanced qualification as well as scale. In such

view, the District Inspector of Schools was requested not to award

Post Graduate marks in favour of such teachers at the time of

selection of Assistant Headmaster. There is a subsequent circular

dated February 26, 2015 which is of the view that, if an Assistant

Teacher appointed in a Post Graduate or Honours Graduate pay scale has Honours Degree or Master Degree qualification, from a

recognized institution, before or after joining the service, then

marks should be awarded to him on the basis of such degree for the

preparation of panel for the post of Assistant Headmaster

irrespective of the fact that, he does not have any kind of approval

from the District Inspector of School for such degree. The

unreported decision in Kakali Bandyopadhyay (supra) is of the

view that, the school as well as the other authorities should take

into account the educational qualification of the Assistant Teacher

concerned rather than the pay scale enjoyed by her while

considering her candidature to the post of Assistant Headmistress.

The guidelines for the requirement of an Assistant Headmaster

appear from memo no. 1628-GA dated July 10, 2002. Such memo,

in my view, does not authorize the District Inspector of Schools to

recast the panel as selected by the selection committee and

approved by the managing committee of a school and sent to the

District Inspector of Schools for its approval. However, the District

Inspector of Schools is in a position to say that, the panel so

prepared by the selection committee and approved by the managing

committee is not in accordance with law. In such a case, he is entitled to remand the panel for reconsideration by the school

authorities. In the facts of the present case, the District Inspector of

Schools has proceeded to recast the panel on his own. He ought not

to have done so. In such circumstances, the impugned memo by

which the District Inspector of Schools has recast the panel and

granted approval to the appointment of the private respondent as

an Assistant Headmistress is quashed. The District Inspector of

Schools is at liberty to consider the panel sent for approval, in

accordance with law and in terms of the observations made herein.

W.P. No. 27717 (W) of 2015 is disposed of. No order as to

costs.

Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be

made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite

formalities.