Summary
Appointments to unfilled primary-teacher posts could not be ordered from an expired panel by substituting TET ranking for the statutory composite merit assessment. The panel expired after one year without extension before the candidates approached the court, and a fresh recruitment had commenced. Directions reserving the remaining 3,929 posts to the old recruitment were set aside. The Board’s appeals were allowed and the connected appeals disposed of.
Issues
- Whether TET eligibility ranking could replace the composite selection criteria under Rule 8.
- Whether candidates applying to court after panel expiry could claim the remaining old-recruitment vacancies.
Provisions considered
- Rule 8, West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016Selection requires aggregate assessment of academic qualifications, training, TET performance, extracurricular activities, interview and aptitude. TET ranking alone could not lawfully replace it. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 29)
- Rule 12, West Bengal Primary School Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2016The panel’s one-year validity expired without competent extension; candidates approaching thereafter could not secure appointments from that extinguished panel. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 28, 29)
Held
- TET is a qualifying examination, while the prescribed composite assessment evaluates wider suitability. The Division Bench’s direction to appoint according to inter-se positions in the TET-2014 eligibility list departed from Rule 8 and could not stand. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 29)
- A panel cannot operate indefinitely as a reservoir for appointments. The 15 February 2021 panel expired on 15 February 2022 without lawful extension; the first petitions were filed only in May 2022. No relief could be based on the extinguished panel. (¶¶ 24, 25, 28, 29)
- Notification of vacancies and selection do not by themselves confer an indefeasible appointment right. Relevant district, age, language and other suitability factors were also involved; 3,929 posts remained vacant when the panel expired. Further appointments under the concluded 2020 process could not be directed once fresh recruitment had begun. (¶¶ 26, 27, 29)
- Dinesh Kumar Kashyap did not support relief: its candidates had approached the court during select-list validity, whereas these petitioners came after expiry, and the Board’s refusal to use the old panel accorded with the rules. (¶ 28)
- The Division Bench judgment and Single Judge appointment direction were set aside. The 252 petitioners and similarly placed candidates had no legitimate appointment claim to the remaining vacancies under that old process. Civil Appeals 1875–1876/2024 were allowed; Civil Appeals 1873 and 1874/2024 were disposed of accordingly. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35)
Result
Board’s Civil Appeals 1875–1876/2024 allowed; High Court appointment directions set aside. Connected Civil Appeals 1873 and 1874/2024 disposed of.