- (1.) The writ petitioners have assailed an Order dated January 1, 2005 passed by the Director of School Education, West Bengal. A school, the respondent no. 8 herein required teachers. The school authorities had applied for prior permission to fill up the vacancies of the teaching staff.
(2.) The District Inspector of School, Primary Education, Paschim Midnapore had granted prior permission by a Memo No. 551/P dated August 21, 2003. The school authorities had advertised for three posts of teachers. The writ petitioners had participated in the selection process. The writ petitioners had been found suitable. The managing committee of the respondent no. 8 by a resolution dated September 23, 2003 had prepared a panel of nine selected candidates to fill up three permanent vacancies of Assistant Teacher of the respondent no. 8. The writ petitioners figure in such panel. The Director of School Education, West Bengal however had expressed a view in the Memo No. 2276-Sc/P dated May 17/19, 2004 that the school authorities did not follow the recruitment rules. Such memo was challenged by the writ petitioners in W.P. No. 10244(W) of 2004. By an Order dated July 7, 2004 such writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the Memo dated May 17/19, 2004. The Director of School Education was directed to take a fresh decision upon hearing the District Inspector of Schools as well as the school authorities and the candidates who might be effected. He was required to pass speaking orders. The Director of School Education by its Order dated January 1, 2005 impugned in the present writ petition has expressed the view that the panel prepared by the school authorities suffered from irregularity due to non-observance of the recruitment rules and, therefore, is liable to be rejected. The school authorities were permitted to a panel afresh following the terms and conditions of the prior permission.
(3.) Mr. Milan Ch. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Advocate for the writ petitioners contends that, the panel prepared by the school authorities has never been challenged. Referring to the prior permission dated August 21, 2003 given by the District Inspector of Schools it is contended on behalf of the writ petitioners that, the qualification for selection had been relaxed. The candidates were no longer required to be trained in any given discipline to qualify as the prior permission dated August 21, 2003 had relaxed such qualification making it optional. Referring to the subsequent conduct of the State authorities namely in relaxing Rules 6(2)(a) and (b) of the West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2001 on December 16, 2005, it is submitted that such subsequent event should be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the writ petition. It is contended that the subsequent notification dated December 16, 2005 does not make training in any discipline to be mandatory. The writ petitioners therefore should be placed at a prejudice more so when the State authorities have notified subsequently that training in any particular discipline is not mandatory. The writ petitioners should be allowed the benefit of such subsequent notification while considering their qualification. It is submitted that, the notification dated December 16, 2005 should be construed to have retrospective effect.;