Shubhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. - (1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (writ petition in short) the moot question for consideration is whether there should be reservation of 50% vacancies for untrained candidates for appointment in the post of Primary Teachers in terms of the Rules regulating the Recruitment and Leave of Teachers in Primary Schools in West Bengal, 1991. In other words it is submitted by the petitioners, who are untrained candidates for the Post of Primary School Teachers, that (here should be a separate panel for untrained candidates. Mr. Sadananda Ganguly, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, strenuously argued that there has been an admission on the part of the respondents to the extent that the District Primary School Council, Jalpaigiri prepared panels both for trained and untrained candidates and that the said panels were submitted before the ad -hoc committee of the said Council. Mr. Ganguly highlighted the statements made in paragraph 11, at page 37 of the writ petition and submitted that such allegations have not been controverted by the respondents by filing affidavit -in -opposition. Mr. Ganguly relied upon the decision in the case of District School Board. Midnapore & Ors. vs. Paschimbanga Pratharnik Sikshak Shikhan Prapta Bekar -O -Sikshak Samiti, West Bengal & Ors. reported in, 1991(1) CLJ 479. In the said decision a division bench of this court while considering the Rules framed under West Bengal (Rural) Primary Education Act 1930 inter alia, observed that in respect of 50% of the normal vacancies the appointing authorities have to consider the claim of trained candidates vis -a -vis untrained candidates on the basis of some rational and reasonable principles. It was not possible for the Court to conceive all eventualities especially in connection with the appointments, but by way of illustration, if in respect of a post which was within remaining 50% of the normal vacancies in a school, the choice was to be made between educational qualification or experience then he should be preferred. On the other hand, other qualifications being equal between a trained and untrained candidate, the trained candidate should be preferred subject to any special category. There is no complete bar to the appointment of untrained teachers. Mr. Ganguly has drawn my attention to paragraph 20 of the said judgment where the division bench observed so far as normal vacancies existing in the Schools are concerned, at least 50% must be filled up by trained candidates only. In respect of remaining 50% of such vacancies, untrained candidates should be considered along with trained candidates on some rational and reasonable principle."
(2.) Mr. Rabilal Maitra learned Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, however, contradicted the submissions of Mr. Ganguly and submitted that under the Rules of 1991 there is no provision for preparation of a separate panel for untrained candidates. Mr. Maitra has drawn my attention to the order passed by the Director of School Education. West Bengal dated October 19, 2001 where it has been stated that the writ petitioners could not secure minimum marks in each category of the empanelled candidates and that they were not selected as such. In the said order of the Director of School Education a chart has been set out to show that the writ petitioners did not secure qualifying marks for their empanelment in the panel appointment. The said chart is available at page 59 of the writ petition, which runs as under:
(3.) Therefore, in this case I am to consider the scope and purport of Rules 8 and 9 of the said Rules of 1991 for deciding as to whether it was incumbent on the part of the authorities to prepare a separate panel for the untrained candidates.;