Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that even when vacancies are notified and an adequate number of candidates are shortlisted, these candidates do not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed against those vacancies as multiple factors are to be taken into account including suitability as per district, age, language, etc before appointments are made.

Accordingly, apex court has set aside Calcutta High Court's division as well as single judge bench order interfering with the recruitment process initiated by the West Bengal for 16,500 teachers in primary schools West Bengal in 2020.

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra concluded that the 252 writ petitioners did not have any legitimate claim for appointments, to the remaining vacancies in the recruitment process, saying no further appointments is permissible when a fresh recruitment process has commenced.

"When the panel expires or after the selection process is over with most posts being filled, the benefit of appointments cannot be given unless the panel’s validity is legally extended. However, no such extension of the panel’s validity was granted. In fact, in conclusion of the earlier process, a fresh recruitment process was undertaken by Notification dated 29.09.2022, through which, 9500 candidates have already been appointed," the bench said.

The court held that the manner of shortlisting candidates for appointment as directed by the division bench is at loggerheads with and in departure from the procedure envisaged under Rule 8. Being inconsistent with the Recruitment Rules, 2016, such a direction cannot be sustained, it said.

In the 2020 recruitment process, a merit list for 15,284 candidates was notified on February 15, 2021. Subsequently, two more merit lists were published, covering the 16,500 vacancies that were notified by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education. 

As per the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016 the said panel of candidates was then sent across to the respective District Primary School Councils, the ‘appointing authority’ under Recruitment Rules 2016, to make appointments therefrom.

As some unsuccessful candidates approached the High Court, the Single Judge by an order on September 26, 2022 directed that the 252 writ petitioners be granted appointments against these unfilled 3929 vacancies.

Subsequently, the Board notified the filling up of a fresh set of 11,765 vacancies for primary school teachers by notification of October 21, 2022, considering the candidature from TET-2014 as well as TET-2017 candidates.

On appeal by the Board, the division bench directed that the balance 3929 vacancies of primary school teachers be treated exclusively as part of the 16,500 vacancies pertaining to TET-2014 candidates only, for which recruitment process had commenced by 2020 notification.

The division bench concluded that the entire TET-2014 selection as well as the appointment process was fraught with irregularities. The Merit List contained only ranks of the candidates without offering their comparative marks. It also observed that not just the TET-2014 candidates or writ petitioners before the High Court but the Board itself was not aware of the cut-off mark at which appointments had ceased. Marks were not disclosed to the unsuccessful candidates and they were given only one-line intimation that they were ‘not included in the present Merit List’. These features shrouded the entire selection process into deeper suspicion, thereby further vitiating the appointment process as opined by the division bench.

The division bench directed that the TET-2014 Eligibility List be treated as the merit list to determine inter-se positions of the TET-2014 candidates, including those 252 applicants who had filed writ petitions before the High Court. 

In their arguments, the appellants Ali Hossain Mandal and others contended before the top court the directions issued by the division bench provided for appointments to be made on the basis of candidates’ inter-se positions in the TET Eligibility List 2014, which was in contravention to the procedure specified under the Recruitment Rules, 2016.

They also said the candidates filed their writ petitions only in May 2022 i.e., approximately three months after the panel had expired. Therefore, no individual could have claimed any right of appointment in reference to the particular recruitment process after the panel had expired. It added that 3929 vacancies that remained unfilled due to various factors were then carried forward through a notification on September 29, 2022 as part of fresh recruitment cycle.

Under the new process, 9500 appointments were already been made from the advertised 11,500 vacancies. It would therefore not be fair to dislodge the appointed candidates either from the previous or current recruitment cycle, they said.

The other side, on the other hand, submitted the entire recruitment exercise had been done in a reckless manner with little to no information in the public domain. Although the Merit List had been notified by the Board, marks scored by candidates were not put forth as part of the same. Additionally, even the candidates were not informed of their scores or the cut-off mark to be breached, to be included in the Merit List. In fact, the Board was not forthcoming on why 3929 vacancies had remained, why no written test was conducted and other relevant information, pertaining to the recruitment process. 

The bench, however, noted the recruitment for primary school teachers is governed by the Recruitment Rules, 2016. The Rule 8 provides for the procedure for selection of candidates. After a prima facie scrutiny of application forms by the Selection Committee, candidates are made to undergo a round of interviews and aptitude tests. 

Thereafter, an evaluation is done on the basis of marks that were awarded or computed as per the criteria, it noted.

The evaluation criteria envisages marks to be awarded on relevant academic qualifications, NCTE-mandated training, performance in TET, extra-curricular activities, performance in the viva-voce and aptitude test to the aspirants. Even within the criteria, extra-curricular activities are to be awarded as per the candidate’s experience in music, arts, drama, literature, etc, the court found.

The court, however, said the recruitment process initiated in 2020 cannot continue indefinitely. The 2020 recruitment process had concluded and the fresh recruitment process commenced thereafter in 2022. 

"It would therefore not be appropriate for this court to direct appointments to be made against the remaining 3929 vacancies, from the already-expired Merit List," the bench said.