- (1.) THE writ petitioner has come up before this Court and questioned the decision of the concerned respondent who has passed an order rejecting the payer for appointment of the writ petitioner who stood second in the panel of select list prepared for appointing para-teacher in upper primary section of the school on a contractual basis on a . consolidated amount of Rs. 2,000.00 per month for a period of one year from the date of his joining. The learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the panel was prepared in 2004 and as per the petitioner's position in the panel he ought to have been appointed as para-teacher in the upper primary school. It was submitted as per the advertisement of the requirement of qualification, graduation with B.Ed, as desirable. Mr. Saha Roy, learned Counsel submitted that pursuant to notification dated 10th June, 2010 his client made an application and his name was empanelled as second in the select list. He submitted that as per the guideline of that point of time qualification required for such appointment is graduate in the relevant subject (B. Ed. Will be desirable). According to Mr. Saha Roy, his client is an honours graduate in vocational subject i.e. seri-culture. Mr. Saha Roy submitted that since it was a requirement of graduate in the relevant subject as per the guideline of the respondent authorities, the appointment of the writ petitioner cannot be refused on the ground that he has graduated in vocational subject. Mr. Saha Roy submitted that there was no bar for the graduates in vocational subject therefore they are obliged to give appointment as per their advertisement as well as the requirements as would appear from the guideline dated 7th May, 2004. Mr. Saha Roy submitted that at the present the respondent authorities can not refuse such appointment by taking a plea that the graduation is on vocational subject. Mr. Saha Roy further submitted that the ban which was imposed by the State Government on 27th March, 2010 cannot be given retrospective effect to. Although it was a panel of 2004 but his client moved this writ petition in the year 2007 by filing a writ petition being W.P. No. 995 (W) of 2007 and the said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 9th October, 2007 wherein this Court passed the following order: "The learned Counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer for consideration of the representation he has made to the District Magistrate and the District Project Officer, Sarba Shiksha Abhiyan, Nadia for reconsideration of the decision of deleting the petitioner's name from the panel. The panel was prepared for the purpose of appointment in the post of a Para-Teacher. Let such representation be considered within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order upon giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and other affected parties. The decision shall be communicated to the petitioner within a further period of one week. In the event any post is lying vacant as on date the same shall not be filled up till decision is taken on the petitioner's representation. With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Since this writ petition is being disposed of without calling for any affidavit, the allegations made in the writ petition shall be deemed to have been denied. There shall be, however, no order as to costs."
(2.) PURSUANT to that order, the concerned respondents have disposed of the representation of the writ petitioner, the order passed by the respondent authorities reads as follows : "Notices were duly served. Writ petitioner and Headmaster of Mira High School appear and File Hazira. Heard all of them. Writ petitioner Sanjoy Sarkar stated that he applied with all necessary papers in connection with engagement of para teacher at Mira High School (H.S.) in 2004 and also stated that his position is at SI. No. 02 in the merit list, but his candidature was not considered as a para teacher since he completed the B.Sc. (Hons.) degree of Sericulture, which was known as vocational subject. He alleged that same degree obtained candidates has been considered as a para teacher to different schools from this end. He also alleged that his representation dated 31/12/04 was not considered without taking any measures. The Headmaster of the said school stated that the School Authority prepared the merit list according to SSA engagement guideline and advertisement. Sanjoy Sarkar's candidature has been considered and empanelled at SI. No. 02 according to merit in the merit list and the Managing Committee approved the merit list unanimously. He also stated that there was no fault of School Authority regarding this matter and also added that at present one post is lying vacant due to resignation of para teacher. He requested the candidature of Sanjoy Sarkar be considered as a para teacher as per school merit list in lieu of vacant post in the interest of education. Perused all the documents and papers related to it. It is a fact that the position of Sanjoy Sarkar was at SI. No.02 according to school merit list. It also appears after checking the merit list the checking officer noted against the candidature of Sanjoy Sarkar (vocational subject). As per guide line of merit list checking the checking officer cancelled the candidature of Sanjoy Sarkar. As vocational subject teacher was not required for Upper Primary School (i.e. from Class V to VIII). I find no ground to shift from earlier decision of rejecting his claim." The learned Counsel submitted that the order passed by the District Project Officer on 19th December, 2007 is erroneous and the concerned authority failed to see the advertisement and guideline and have come to a wrong conclusion. According to Mr. Saha Roy, that the respondent authorities can not change their opinion for subsequent imposition of some new conditions which is not there in the advertisement. He relied on a judgment reported in AIR 2011, V-12, SCC, page-85 : (2010)2 WBLR (SC) 82 (Bedanga Talukdar. v. Saifudaullah Khan and Others) paragraph-29. In that judgment it was held that selection process has to be and strictly in accordance with the selection procedure. It was submitted that the subsequent decision or any other decision taken by the Sub-Committee is not applicable in the instant case. Therefore, the respondents should be directed to give such contractual appointment on the basis of the panel prepared in 2004 especially when he stood second in the Select List.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents appears and submits that the guideline at the relevant time was graduation in the relevant subject with B.Ed, (desirable). According to the learned Counsel that the relevant subject is mentioned in sub-clause "C" of Clause-VI of one of the guidelines. . "The schools mentioned in the point (v) above will be allotted additional para-teachers in such a way so that total no. of teachers and para-teachers for that particular school for upper primary classes be fixed at six and there are at least two teachers/para- teachers in each subject group viz. Language, Science and Social Science." ;