- (1.) BOTH these appeals relate to identical judgments passed in two writ petitions on the same day. Hence both ace disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) THE writ petitioners/appellants were enrolled with the Employment exchange. They alleged that the District Primary School Council did not permit them to participate in the selection process for the post of primary school teachers as they were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. On perusal of the records it appears that the writ petitioners were not sponsored as they were juniors to the candidates sponsored by the employment Exchange. The appellants/writ petitioners approached the learned Single Judge by filing two writ petitions being W. P. No. , 14524 (W)of 2006 and W. P. No. 14525 (W) of 2006 with the identical contentions that once they were enrolled as unemployed youth having eligible qualification for the post of Primary School Teacher they must be allowed to participate in the selection process irrespective of the fact that they were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. They contended that in view of various decisions of the Apex Court and also of this Court the Council was under obligation to publish employment notice inviting applications from all eligible candidates. They also challenged the provisions of the West Bengal Primary school Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2001 which restricted the Primary school Council from considering any candidate not being sponsored by the employment Exchange. The learned Single Judge relied on His Lordship's own judgment and order in other writ petitions dealing with the identical issue and held that the writ petitioners were not entitled to get any relief as prayed for in the writ petition. Hence, this appeal.
(3.) MR. Madan Lal, learned Counsel appearing in support of the appeals contended as follows :- (i) Once the writ petitioners had the eligible qualifications for the post of Primary Teacher they must be allowed to participate in the selection process. (ii) Salary of the Primary Teacher were being paid from public exchequer. Hence, it was the duty of the Council as well as the State to find out best qualified candidates for the said post. If the appellants were found better qualified than the sponsored candidates there was no reason why they should be kept out of consideration. (iii) The Rules of 2001 initially did not impose* any fetter with regard to the consideration of the sponsored candidates only which Was introduced by way of amendment made in 2005. Such amendment was irrational and not justifiable. (iv) Since all the eligible candidates including the appellants as well as sponsored candidates belonged to one class being registered unemployed youth eligible for the post of primary teachers the State was not entitled to create different class within the same class which was contrary to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of The State of Orissa and Anr. v. N. N. Swamy and Ors. reported in All india Reporter, 1977, SC Page 1237. (v) The restrictions imposed by the amended rules was unreasonable and as such was liable to be struck down. ;