Supreme Court: Candidate Seeking Public Employment Must Satisfy Eligibility Requirements In Terms Of Date Appointed By Relevant Service Rules
The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeals in which the issue was related to the appointments to the post of Assistant Teachers in primary schools in the West Bengal State.
Justice P.S. Narasimha, Justice Manoj Misra, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that a candidate seeking public employment must satisfy his/her eligibility requirements in terms of the date appointed by the relevant service rules.
The Court observed thus in a batch of Civil Appeals in which the issue involved was related to the appointments to the post of Assistant Teachers in primary schools in the West Bengal State.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra enunciated, “Even as per the decisions of this Court in Bhupinderpal Singh (supra), the candidate seeking public employment must satisfy his eligibility requirements in terms of the date appointed by the relevant service rules and, “if there is no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose of advertisement calling for applications”. Further, if there is no such date appointed then eligibility criteria shall be with reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received.”
Senior Advocates S. Patwalia, Rauf Rahim, and Meenakshi Arora appeared on behalf of the Appellants while Senior Advocates Jaideep Gupta, Subir Sanyal, Biswajit Deb, Gopal Sankarnarayanan, and AOR Kunal Chatterjee appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Factual Background
The post of the Assistant Teacher in this case was governed by the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 23(1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, by notification, the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) laid down the minimum qualification for a person to be appointed as a teacher for class I to class VIII. The Appellants aspired to join the said post. As the mandatory minimum qualification for the post of Primary Teacher in the State is a Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.), a two-year course conducted by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education (WBBPE), constituted under the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973, the Appellants enrolled themselves for the 2020-2022 batch of D.El.Ed. The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and problems with the Constitution and functioning of the Board delayed the 2020 2022 batch, leading to a situation where the normal and natural conclusion of the 2022 batch by 30th June seemed uncertain.
The Appellants were concerned that they may lose the opportunity to apply and participate in the recruitment process that was to commence with the issuance of a notification in October 2022. With this apprehension and anxiety about the fact that many of them could cross the age bar if they did not participate in the upcoming recruitment process, they approached the Calcutta High Court by filing the Writ Petitions, which were allowed. The Appellants applied as per the recruitment notification, obtained their course completion certificates, and the final results for Part II of the examination were also declared. Interviews commenced in December 2022, and the process was moving towards completion. At this stage, questioning the legality of the Single Judge’s Order, the Respondents who pre-possessed D.El.Ed. qualification, filed Writ Appeals before the Division Bench, which allowed the same and set aside the Single Judge’s Order. Being aggrieved, the Appellants were before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, ordered, “Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed a mistake in interpreting and construing Rule 6(2) as a provision prescribing some kind of a cut off date by which time the minimum educational qualifications must be possessed. This reasoning is contrary to the text of the rule, it is also contrary to the clear and unambiguous stand of the Board. The interpretation of Rule 6(2) adopted by the division bench is incorrect and the judgment on this issue is hereby set aside."
The Court said that the need for a close scrutiny of the recruitment notification is also to ensure that it is in consonance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. It further observed that a recruitment notification occupies an important position in the recruitment process and this is for the reasons that the candidates participating in the selection process must be informed of the rules and regulations that would apply for considering the eligibility of the participants.
“It is an important principle of transparency, intended to prevent illegality and arbitrariness in executive action. As indicated hereinabove, the advertisement itself specified that candidates such as the appellants will be entitled to apply and their candidature will be considered”, it also noted.
The Court was of the opinion that there is no illegality and arbitrariness in the actual recruitment notification and that the recruitment process commenced under the relevant rules and also as per the directions of the Single Judge of the High Court disposing of the Writ Petition.
“The facts of this case reveal a rather extraordinary situation where the Board and also the High Court (Single Judge) sought to resolve the problem that had arisen due to late conduct of the 2020-22 of D.El.Ed. examination immediately after the Covid-19 pandemic. … It is important to note that the recruitment notification dated 21.10.2022 was not challenged by anyone”, it added.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals, set aside the Division Bench’s Judgment, and directed the Board to take immediate steps for concluding the recruitment process as expeditiously as possible.
Cause Title- Soumen Paul & Ors. v. Shrabani Nayek & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 451)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocates S. Patwalia, Rauf Rahim, Meenakshi Arora, AORs Nishant Singh, Shekhar Kumar, Advocates Dibyendu Chatterjee, Reshmi Ghosh, Aranya Moulick, Namya Rishi, Dibyendu Chatterjee, Ali Asghar Rahim, and Soham Datt.
Respondents: Senior Advocates Jaideep Gupta, Subir Sanyal, Biswajit Deb, Gopal Sankarnarayanan, AORs Kunal Chatterjee, Abha Jain, Anando Mukherjee, Shalini Chandra, Devendra Kumar Shukla, Pranav Sachdeva, Abhijit Sengupta, Advocates Gaurav Jain, Shwetank Singh, Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit Bansal, Suryodaya Prakash Tiwari, Shachi Pandey, Neha Rathi, Kajal Giri, Dibyadyuti Banerjee, Sumedha Halder, and Paras Chauhan.
