Smt. Sabina Yasmin & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 255 Cal

43 10.01.2023
Sc   Ct. no.22
                                      WPA 21928 OF 2018
                                             --------------

Smt. Sabina Yasmin & Ors.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay Mr. Suman Sankar Chatterjee Mr. Santanu Maji Ms. Trisha Rakshit Mr. Subhayu Das Mr. Pronay Basak Ms. Rajashree Tah.

....For the Petitioners Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee Ms. Madhurima Sarkar.

.....For the Madrasah Service Commission

This writ petition is at the instance of twelve

petitioners having independent but identical causes of

action. Court fees have been put in respect of all

petitioners.

Pursuant to the direction of a coordinate Bench

dated January 25, 2021 Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee, learned

counsel appearing for the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 has

filed an affidavit report, affirmed on August 16, 2021,

today, is taken on record. A copy of the said report has

already been served upon the writ petitioners.

The writ petitioners also filed a counter affidavit

against the said report which was affirmed on December

2, 2021, the same is also taken on record.

The twelve writ petitioners were aspirants and

participated in the 6th State Level Selection Test-TET,

2013 (6th SLST - 2013) in different streams which are as

follows :

1. Sabina Yasmin - writ petitioner no.1 - Bengali (H/PG)

2. Rubi Dey - writ petitioner no.2 - History (H/PG)

3. Md. Toufique - writ petitioner no.3 - English (H/PG)

4. Mujanur Sekh - writ petitioner no.4 - Geography (H/PG)

5. Mamataj Khatun - writ petitioner no.5 - Bengali (H/PG)

6. Towheed Alam - writ petitioner no.6 - Arabic Madrasah (M.M.) - (H/PG)

7. Mojibur Rahman - writ petitioner no.7 - Arabic Madrasah (M.M.) - (H/PG)

8. Wahida Rahaman - writ petitioner no.8 - Geography (H/PG)

9. Md. Maruf Ali - writ petitioner no.9 - English (H/PG)

10. Srimanta Mandal - writ petitioner no.10 - English (H/PG)

11. Sagira Khatun - writ petitioner no.11 - English (H/PG)

12. Sybhrajyoti Singha - writ petitioner no.12 -

Bengali (H/PG)

All the twelve petitioners travelled up to the

"Personality Test".

The affidavit report filed on behalf of the respondent

nos. 2, 3 and 4 had revealed the stand of the said

respondents as follows:

" The panel was published on 22.06.2018 and the same had lost its force after one (1) year as per Rule 24 of the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Recruitment (Selection and Recommendation of persons for Appointment and Transfer to the Post of Teacher and non- teaching Staff) Rules, 2010 and thus, there is no

scope for taking into consideration the vacancies of unwilling Madrasahs after 06.01.2020 for preparation of a fresh panel. Moreover, in the judgment and order dated 06.01.2020 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India did not pass any order for preparation of a fresh panel of 6th SLST, 2013 (AT) taking into account the vacancies of unwilling Madrasahs. Hence, the representation annexed in the supplementary affidavit has no merit at all."

Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay, learned counsel

appearing for the writ petitioners submitted that

previously identical writ petitions filed by various other

writ petitioners aspirants were considered by this Court

from time to time. In two of such writ petitions, viz. W.P.

24096 (W) of 2018 and W.P. 11977 (W) of 2018 a

coordinate Bench by its order dated August 30, 2019

directed the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission

(for short the said Commission) to consider the case of

the petitioner in accordance with law. Leaned counsel

appearing for the petitioners prayed identical relief in this

writ petition today. He submitted that in view of the said

direction made by the coordinate Bench, the said

Commission had considered the cases of the writ

petitioners and several writ petitioners had received

appointment subsequently.

Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing

for the said Commission referred to a portion from an

order dated May 17, 2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Civil Appeal No(s). 5808/2017 (SK. MD.

RAFIQUE VERSUS MANAGING COMMITTEE, CONTAI

RAHAMANIA HIGH MADRASAH & ANR.) which was as

follows :

"5. As there are large number of vacancies existing in the various Madrasahs, we permit the declaration of the result for the recruitment process of the year 2014. However, no further recruitment process shall be undertaken. It is also stated by the State Government and Commission that only those Madrasahs who want to take the incumbents from the list of 2014 process, the Commission shall sponsor the names only to such Madrasahs, not to others. The process shall be done strictly and in accordance with the merit list of the candidates and the appointment so made, shall be subject to the final outcome of the case.

6. It was stated that there are certain incumbents, who were selected in the recruitment process of 2013 also, are also awaiting their appointments.Let the appointment be made in the institutions which are willing to take such teachers, however, strictly in order of merit and that shall be subject to the final outcome of these matters."

Mr. Mukherjee then submitted that in view of the

dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was true that the

said Commission had acted thereupon to the extent that

no further recruitment process was undertaken till

January 6, 2020 and only those madrasahs who wanted

to take the incumbents from the list of 2014 process, the

Commission had sponsored the names only to such

madrasahs and not to others. Mr. Mukherjee then

submitted that subject to the said limitation as observed

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in terms of the requisition

made by the willing madrasahs the names were

sponsored by the said Commission. He then submitted

that these twelve writ petitioners did not come within the

consideration zone even after participating the

"Personality Test". He submitted that, in any event even

the willing madrasahs' requisitions would be taken into

account in terms of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, then also if these writ petitioners would come

within the consideration zone strictly in terms of their

merit, their names could not and cannot be sponsored by

the said Commission.

Considering the rival contentions of the parties and

considering the materials on record and considering the

fact of pendency of this writ petition since October, 2018,

this Court is of the view that in the light of the

observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the

said Commission through its Secretary, i.e., the

respondent no.3 in exercise of its power and discretion

and without any fetter thereupon shall consider the case

of these writ petitioners strictly on the basis of the

requisitions made by the willing madrasahs, if there is

any vacancy available in terms of such requisitions and

strictly on the basis of the merits of these twelve writ

petitioners in accordance with law.

This exercise, as directed above, shall be carried

out and completed by the respondent no.3 positively

within a period of four weeks from the date of

communication of this order. The respondent no.3 then

shall communicate its reasoned decision to the writ

petitioners within a further period of two weeks

thereafter.

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into

the merits of the claim of the petitioners. It is also made

clear that this order shall not create any equity or right in

favour of these writ petitioners in any manner

whatsoever, in the event they are ineligible to be

considered in terms of their merits and in accordance

with law.

On the above terms this writ petition, WPA 21928

of 2018 stands disposed of, without any order as to

costs.

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for,

be furnished expeditiously.

(Aniruddha Roy, J.)