15.07.2026 Sl. No.1(DL) Ct. No.14 srm IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. No. 6889 of 2023 Subhra Das Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Biswarup Bhattacharya, Mr. Anindya Sundar Das, Mr. Shaimal Ghosh, Ms. Paramita Mondal, Mr. Suva Gayen, Ms. Susmita Das …for the Petitioner. Mr. Subir Sanyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ratul Biswas, Mr. Kaushik Chowdhury …for the WBBPE. Mr. Brijendra Pratap Singh, Mr. Asit Kumar De …for the State. 1. This matter is appearing in the list under the heading “For Orders”. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondent authorities for appointing the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher in terms of notification dated 28th November, 2022 by recasting/modifying the recommendation list. 3. The petitioner contends that she participated in Teacher Eligibility Test (in short, „TET‟), 2014, however, she was declared unsuccessful. By the order of this Court, six marks were awarded for wrong answers to the candidates, by dint of which the 2 petitioner was declared qualified in TET, 2014 in the year 2021. Since the petitioner was not declared qualified in TET, 2014 earlier, she could not participate in the recruitment process initiated in the year 2016. As the petitioner has been declared qualified for TET, 2014, subsequently her candidature for the recruitment process of 2016 should be considered and appointment letter be issued in her favour. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Mr. Biswarup Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that there was gross irregularity in the recruitment process of 2016. Untrained candidates were given appointment in the year 2016 recruitment process on the ground that there was no trained candidate. The right of the petitioner to have her candidature considered in the recruitment process of 2016 follows from the order of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court dated 5th September, 2022 passed in Soham Roy Choudhury & Ors. versus the State of West Bengal & Ors. (In Re: WPA 5505 of 2022). In the aforesaid writ petition, direction was issued upon the Board to take appropriate steps for recommending the petitioners in future vacancies i.e. the vacancies which have already come in the hand of the Board subsequent to 2016 recruitment process. Pursuant thereto appointments have been given to the candidates pertaining to recruitment process of 2016. As the petitioner is 3 similarly circumstanced, he seeks for necessary direction upon the Board for issuance of appointment letter in favour of the petitioner pertaining to recruitment process of 2016. 5. On the contrary, Mr. Subir Sanyal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Board submits that in the year 2016 the minimum qualification for classes I-V was Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (in short, „D.El.Ed.‟) . The petitioner is not a trained candidate inasmuch as she does not process D.El.Ed. Degree. Therefore, in respect of recruitment process of 2016, she is not a qualified trained candidate to participate in the recruitment process of the said year. The petitioner has subsequently participated in the recruitment process initiated in the year 2020 in terms of order passed by this Hon’ble Court, but could not succeed, since she did not have 50% marks in Graduation. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in N. Lokanadham versus Chairman, Telecom Commission & Ors. reported in (2008) 5 SCC 155, he submits that as the petitioner participated in the subsequent recruitment process without any demur, the principle of estoppel would apply in the case of the petitioner and thus she cannot claim for consideration of her candidature for earlier recruitment process initiated in year 2016. Further 4 the panel of the recruitment process of 2016 was published in the month of January/February, 2017 and all appointments of empanelled candidates both from the panels of trained and untrained has been exhausted in the year 2017 itself except in respect of few candidates where there were certain disputes/discrepancies. The panel has expired in the month of January/February, 2018 after expiry of one year and it cannot be extended as per existing Rule 12 of the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the „Recruitment Rules, 2016‟). Further the writ petition suffers from inordinate delay, having been filed in the year 2023 when the panel expired in the year 2018. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim for allowing her candidature in respect of a panel which has already expired. Reliance is placed on the following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in: (i) Ali Hossain Mandal & Ors. versus West Bengal Board of Primary Education & Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1189; (ii) State of U.P. & Ors. Harish Chandra & Ors. reported in (1996) 9 SCC 309. In light of his aforesaid submissions, he seeks for dismissal of the writ petition 6. Upon hearing learned Advocates for the respective parties, the only issue, which falls for consideration, 5 is whether the petitioner in facts and circumstances of the present case is entitled to appointment in recruitment process initiated by the Board in the year 2016 or not. 7. Indisputably, the petitioner did not have the qualification of D.El.Ed. in the year 2016. 7.1. The NCTE notification dated 23rd March, 2010 provides for following minimum qualification: “1. Minimum Qualifications.- (i) Classes I-V (a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002 OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B..El.Ed.) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Education (Special Education) And (b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.” 7.2. The NCTE notification as amended on 29th July, 2011 provides for following minimum qualification: “1. Minimum Qualifications.- (i) Classes I-V (a) Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 45% marks and 2-year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002 OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4-year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B..El.Ed.) OR Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 2-year Diploma in Education (Special Education) 6 OR Graduation and two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) And (c) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with the Guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.” 7.3. Bearing in mind the requirement provided in the aforesaid notification, there cannot be any quarrel that the petitioner did not meet the necessary qualification for a trained candidate, as she did not possess D.El.Ed. Degree. 8. Moreover, the Board in its supplementary affidavit have stated that the petitioner participated in the subsequent recruitment process of 2020 but could not succeed since she did not have 50% marks in Graduation as required under notification of NCTE dated 28th June, 2018 which has not disputed by the petitioner. As this juncture, the question, which crops up, is whether a person, who participates in the subsequent recruitment process but fails, can claim right over the earlier recruitment process or not. 9. In order to examine the above aspect, it would be apposite to reproduce the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in N. Lokanadham (supra) as follows: “17. For performing their functions in a more responsible position, they were required to be thorough with the rules pertaining to all receipts and expenditure of the Department and it is in that sense, the First Volume of the Financial Handbook deals with such transactions in general. Indisputably, the cadre of Junior Accounts Officer is the feeder post for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Accounts Officer, Accounts Officer and Senior Accounts Officer. Officers belonging to the said cadre indisputably must have sufficient knowledge as regards the procedure pertaining to the Accounts Code, Treasury Rules, Financial Rules, etc. Furthermore, assuming there was some ambiguity in the prescribed syllabus, it would have been for an expert body to clear the same and in the event it is found that any question has been put out of syllabus, only those who could not answer the same might have been 7 entitled to any relief. No relief in a case of this nature could have been granted on assumptions. It was not for the Tribunal to pass an order only on the supposition that the appellant did not prepare themselves well owing to some misunderstanding in regard to the extent of syllabus. 18. We may furthermore notice that the appellant herein without any démur whatsoever appeared in the subsequent examination. He even did not qualify therein. The principle of estoppel would, therefore, apply in this case. The Tribunal had, thus, exceeded its jurisdiction in passing its order dated 23-4-2004.” 10. Bearing in mind the aforesaid observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner is estopped from raising or claiming her right in respect of the earlier recruitment process of 2016 upon participating in the subsequent recruitment process of 2020 without any demur. 11. Further Rule 12 of Rules of 2016 provides as hereunder: “12. Validity of the panel.–An approved panel shall remain valid normally for one year from the date of approval by the Board: Provided that the Board may extend the validity of such panel by six months at a time, but the total period of such extension shall not exceed for a period of one year.” 12. As per the supplementary affidavit filed by the Board, the panel was published in the month of January/February, 2017. Thus, bearing in mind the aforesaid Rule, undeniably the panel of recruitment process of 2016 has expired in the month of January/February, 2018. Now the question arises whether after expiry of the panel the petitioner can claim for consideration of her candidature. 13. In Harish Chandra (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “9. Coming to the merits of the matter, in view of the Statutory Rules contained in Rule 26 of the Recruitment Rules the conclusion is irresistible that a select list prepared under the Recruitment Rules has its life only for one year from the date of the preparation of the list and it 8 expires thereafter. Rule 26 is extracted hereinbelow in extenso: "26. .Appointment by appointing authority. The select list referred to in sub-rules (6) and (7) of Rule 23 shall be forwarded by the Selection Committee to the appointing authority mentioning the aggregate marks obtained at the selection by each candidate. The name of general and reserve candidates shall be arranged by the appointing authority in a common list according to the merit of the candidates and the appointment shall be offered in the order in which the names are arranged in the list shall hold good for a period of one year from the date of selection." 14. In Ali Hossain Mandal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “29. In light of the above discussion, the following conclusions are reached: i. The manner of shortlisting candidates for appointment as suggested by the Division Bench in the impugned judgments is inconsistent with the procedure laid down under Rule 8 of the Recruitment Rules, 2016, and those, cannot be sustained. ii. The Panel or Merit List as notified on 15.02.2021 stood extinguished after expiry of one year i.e., on 15.02.2022, as per Rule 12 of the Recruitment Rules, 2016. iii. No extension by any competent authority was granted to the 15.02.2021 Panel and therefore no relief can be granted to candidates who approached the court in May 2022, i.e., long after the panel stood extinguished. iv. No further appointments is permissible from the recruitment process initiated on 23.12.2020 when a fresh recruitment process has commenced.” 15. Keeping in mind the aforesaid propositions of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner cannot claim her right for consideration of her candidature upon expiry of the panel as per Rule 12 of the Recruitment Rules, 2016. 16. Furthermore, the petitioner is not at all similarly circumstanced as of the petitioners in Soham Roy Choudhury (supra) inasmuch as the petitioners therein were trained candidates whereas in the case at hand the petitioner is admittedly not a trained candidate. Hence, the facts are distinguishable. 17. Hence, the writ petition falls short of merit. 9 18. Accordingly, the writ petition being WPA 6889 of 2023 stands dismissed. 19. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 20. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 21. There shall be no order as to costs. 22. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 23. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of all necessary legal formalities. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)