SOUMITRA PAL,J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the Birbhum District Primary School Council against the judgement and order dated 12th April, 2016 passed in W.P. 26528 (W) of 2015 (Golam Murtoza and others versus The State of West Bengal and others) whereby the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions held, inter alia, as under:- "The issue, therefore, falling for consideration in these writ petitions have to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the petitioners. All District Primary School Councils in the State of West Bengal undertaking the 2006 selection process will revisit the panel out of which appointments of primary teachers have been granted in the 2006 selection process. Such District Primary School Councils will award appropriate marks in terms of Rule 9(2)(d) of the Recruitment Rules, 2001 to every candidate possessing requite training certificate for the years prior to 2005. The District Primary School Councils will prepare a fresh panel on such basis. District Primary School Council thereafter will proceed to give appointments to the persons in the panel in accordance with merit for the 2006 vacancies. It is expected that the District Primary School Councils complete the entire exercise within a period of six weeks from the date of the communication of this order. The District Primary School Councils will undertake the exercise for all the candidates participating in the selection process of 2006. It will not limit the exercise to the petitioners only. On completion of such exercise the District Primary School Council will proceed to appoint the candidates in accordance with merit. The authorities will grant approval to such appointments in accordance with law. These 284 writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs."
(2.) The issue which requires to be considered is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing all District Primary School Councils in the State of West Bengal, who had undertaken the 2006 selection process, for recruitment of primary teachers to revisit the panel out of which appointments of primary teachers were made. It is evident while disposing of the writ petition, being W.P. 26528 (W) of 2015, 284 writ petitions on similar issue were disposed of. Though facts, in general, and the question of law in all the writ petitions were similar, for the sake of brevity and clarity, the prayers in W.P. No. 26528 (W) of 2015 are referred to. The relevant prayers in the said writ petition were as under:- "a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and/or their men and agents to treat the certificates of the petitioners obtained on Primary Teachers' Training during the period 2004-05 valid and to allot 22 marks to each of them in the light of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and to provide all of them employment in Primary School as teachers immediately; b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and/or their men and agents to set aside the panel, if any, prepared by the respondents;"
(3.) Mr. L. K. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants relying on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal submitted that the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 ('1993 Act' for short) governs the teacher education system in the country. The 1993 Act does not contain any provision for relaxation of any condition regarding grant of affiliation to an institution by the regional body of the National Council for Teacher Education (for short "NCTE"). Under section 14 of the 1993 Act every institution to impart teacher education has to apply for recognition to the regional body. Parameters therein, which are not mere formalities, have to be fulfilled. Recognition granted or refused to an institution by NCTE shall be notified in the Official Gazette. Section 15 speaks of recognised institutions to impart training and course is determined by Regulations. Section 16 stipulates that no examining body shall be granted affiliation by the State unless the institution is recognised by the regional body of the NCTE. Submission was unless norms are there in the statute for relaxing the conditions for grant of recognition to an institution, recognition has to be in accordance with sections 14, 15 and 16. Referring to these statutory provisions, it was submitted that relaxation granted under Clause 10 of Appendix 5 to give time to the states, having one year teacher education course up to 2004- 2005, to switch over their programmes for bringing them in conformity with NCTE norms and standards, was with regard to the eligibility/duration of Course and had nothing to do with the recognition of an institution. According to him candidates obtaining training certificates from institutions not recognised by NCTE are not entitled to marks for training as even under the relaxed standard of Course, recognition of an institution which under sections 14, 15 and 16 is mandatory as held in paragraphs 97,98 and 99 in the judgment delivered on 1st October, 2008 in Tulsi Baksi vs. State of West Bengal: 2008(4) CHN 789. Submission was the judgement delivered on 26th February, 2010 in Hiranmoy Bhowmick vs. State of West Bengal: 2010(2) CLJ (Cal) 69 or the judgement delivered on 12th April, 2011 in MAT No. 1268 of 2010 Sampa Pradhan versus State of West Bengal neither considers the law laid down in paragraph 92, 97,98 and 99 in Tulsi Baksi (supra) nor considers the statutory provisions in sections 14, 15 and 16 of the 1993 Act. It is evident from the judgment delivered on 29th June, 2010 in WP. 2580 (W) of 2010 Tumpa Roy vs. The State of West Bengal explaining the judgment in Hiranmoy Bhowmik (supra), that the stand of the State is consistent. As the 2006 selection process for appointment of primary teachers came to an end by giving appointments in mid February, 2010 treating all candidates as untrained was in consonance with 1993 Act when the judgment in Tulsi Baksi (supra) was prevailing and as subsequent interpretation in Hiranmoy Bhowmick (supra) and in Sampa Pradhan (supra) of the judgment in Tulsi Baksi (supra) cannot make the appointments made in mid February 2010 bad in law as nothing has been shown on behalf of the respondents that those were illegal or irregular, the impugned judgment be set aside. For the same reason the respondents cannot have the benefit of the Bridge Course introduced by notification dated 10th May, 2010 subsequent to the judgement in Tulsi Baksi (supra) through NCTE recognised PTTIs. Referring to the appointment given pursuant to the judgment of the Division Bench in Arpita Roy vs. State of West Bengal : 2012 SCC Online Cal 2258 submission was as it was not in accordance with principles of law laid down in Tulsi Baksi (supra) it did not lay the correct proposition of law. Referring to the prayers in the writ petition, being W.P 26528 (W) of 2015, submission was that the learned Single Judge erred in directing all the District Primary School Councils to revisit the 2006 panel as any order directing cancellation of appointments will be in breach of the principles of natural justice as the appointees, about 28000 -the necessary parties, are not parties to these proceedings. Assuming appointments made were illegal and those are cancelled, in that event panel cannot be revisited on the basis of the 2006 Rules regarding appointment as recruitment rules prevailing on the date of cancellation shall have to be followed. With regard to the order dated 19th August, 2015 passed by the Supreme Court submission was the appointments made in mid February, 2010 and the subsequent change of criteria for appointment for primary teachers had led the Supreme Court in disposing of the SLPs as nothing was left to decide on the said petitions.;