Pratap Kumar Ray, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
(2.) IN this writ application the Petitioner has prayed for the following relief 's: (a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to do their duty in accordance with law and to direct the Respondents to include the Petitioner's name in the panel and issue appointment letter of primary teacher of any school of Midnapore District as she is a qualified candidate and as she fulfilled all the conditions in the interview held on 29.11.98. (b) A writ of and/or in the nature of certiorari calling upon the Respondents to certify and transmit to this Hon'ble Court entire records of the case and impugned panel prepared by the Respondents including the marks obtained by the paneled candidates in the year 1999. (c) To issue Rule in the nature of prohibition not to cancel the name of your Petitioner from the preparation of panel as a primary teacher of Midnapore District on the basis of interview held on 29.11.98 and the marks obtained by the Petitioner from mark -sheets and from other activities. (d) To issue a writ or writs and/or order or orders and direction or directions to enlist the name of your Petitioner in the preparation of panel as a Primary teacher in the District Midnapore, Primary School Council at Midnapore. The facts leading to the writ application are as follows: The Petitioner's name was sponsored for selection in the post of Primary School Teacher by the District Primary School Council, Midnapore (hereinafter referred to as the 'concerned Primary School') on the basis of the academic marks and the eligible training qualification. The Petitioner appeared in the interview but thereafter could not succeed for empanelment of her name in the final panel. The Petitioner moved with this grievance earlier about non -appointment in the post of Assistant Teacher when by the order dated June 7, 1996 N.K. Mitra, J. (as His Lordship then was) in CO. No. 4249 (W) of 1996 directed the Primary School Council to pass a reasoned order with reference to the grievance of the Petitioner. The said District Primary School Council considered the matter and by his decision as communicated under Memo No. 5260/2/L.A. dated November 11, 1997 disposed of the grievance of the Petitioner by rejecting the same on the ground that she could not succeed in the interview for such selection. This writ application has been opposed by the Primary School Council by filing affidavit and by the State Government without filing any affidavit.
(3.) IT is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that the Primary School Council did not consider the Balsevika Training Certificate issued by the Indian Council for Child Welfare as a training qualification to allot marks as per the Recruitment and Leave Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Recruitment Rules) applicable to the selection of the Primary Teachers in terms of Notification No. 768 -Edn. (P) dated November 22, 1991. It is submitted that for training qualification the Petitioner was entitled to get 20 marks under Rule 9(b)(ii) of the said Rules. Had there been allotment of marks for Balsevika Training Certificate, the Petitioner would have succeeded to be enlisted in the panel. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that Balsevika Training though was not coming under the definition of 2(n) of the said Recruitment Rules but under the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Primary Education Act for brevity), the Indian Council for Child Welfare is a recognised Institution as per definition of Junior Basic Training Institution as appearing under definition 2(xi) of the Primary Education Act. The Petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India : A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1361 and Article 257 of the Constitution of India to submit that a training certificate issued by the authority of Central Government should be given effect to by the State Government. The learned Advocate for the Primary School Council placed his argument with reference to the Recruitment Rules by contending, inter alia, that under Rule 2(n) the qualification of Balsevika Training Certificate has not been considered as equivalent training qualification of Junior Basic Training / Primary Teachers Training Certificate. It is further contended that such Balsevika Training Certificate only has been considered as a valid qualification for appointment of teachers in the pre -basis school and not in the primary school in terms of G.O. No. 3302A -Edn. (D) dated October 9, 1964. It is further contended that said training qualification cannot be equivalent and hence the Council did not allot any marks for Balsevika Training Course. The learned Advocate appearing for the State Government also supported the views of the Council. Having regard to the submissions of the parties, I consider the only point for adjudication in this case as emerged as to whether Balsevika Training Certificate would be considered as a training qualification in terms of Rule 2(n) of -the Recruitment Rules arid thereby whether the same would fetch the marks of 20 in terms of Rule 9(b) (ii) of the said Rules. For adjudication of the said matter the relevant Rule is required to be considered. Under Section 106 of the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973, 'Recruitment and Leave Rules for appointment of the Primary School Teachers' as well as their service conditions were framed and constituted by Notification No. 768 -t.dn. (P) dated November 22, 1991. "One Rule as framed was titled as Rules regulating the Recruitment and Leave of Teachers in Primary School in West Bengal.;