IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay

WPA 6462 of 2025

Cathedral Mission High School & Anr.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharyya

: Mr. Biswarup Biswas

: Mr. Aninda Bhattacharyya

For the State : Mr. Swapan Kr. Datta, ld. AGP

: Mr. Dipankar Dasgupta

For the respondent nos. 4-6 : Mr. Sunit Kr. Roy

Judgment reserved : 27.02.2026

Judgment on : 18.03.2026

Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-

1. The solitary legal question involved in this writ petition is whether

the petitioners, that is, a linguistic minority school governed under

Article 30 of the Constitution of India and regulated vide the

Notification No. 79-ES/S/10R-14/2013 dated February 03, 2016

(in short „No. 79‟), has duly complied with the procedure as

provided thereunder in the process of recruitment, so that the

panel prepared may be approved by the respondent No. 3/the

District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Kolkata. The

writ petitioners being aggrieved with the decision and order of

refusal by the said respondent No. 3, to approve the said panel,

have filed the instant writ petition for appropriate relief. The

Page 2 of 19

impugned order is dated September 15, 2023 of the respondent No.

3/District Inspector of Schools, Secondary Education, Kolkata

which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

2. The following grounds has been enumerated in the impugned order

of D.I. dated September 15, 2023:-

“1) The mandate of Rule 1 of Annexure I of notification no.

79-ES/S/10R-14/2013 dated 03/02/2016 is that the school

authority shall publish advertisement with the "Name of the

School with complete postal address along with PIN code and

phone number." The school authority did not disclose the

phone no/mobile no of the school/HM/Secretary in the

advertisement. Therefore, the school authority violated the

Rule 1 of Annexure I of notification no, 79-ES/S/1QR-14/2013

dated 03/02/2016.

2) In terms of clause 5(C) of Annexure I of notification no. 79-

ES/S/10R-14/2013 dated 03/02/2016, the school authority

shall publish advertisement declaring the post either in

normal section or Higher Secondary Section and in case of

Normal Section, the school authority shall also declare the

"Group" of the post. The school authority didnot disclose the

posts either in normal section or Higher Secondary Section

and violated the mandate of clause 5(C) of Annexure I of

notification no 79-ES/S/10R-14/2013 dated 03/02/2016.

3) In terms of rules 6 Annexure I of notification no-79-ES/S

dated 03/02/2016 the school authority shall publish

advertisement with the minimum academic qualification,

professional qualification, age limit, teaching experience and

citizenship, in fact, minimum qualification for any post in

Higher Secondary Section as per N.C.T.E. Norms as well as

SSC,WB's Norms it should be 50% marks in the respective

subject with B.Ed and in case of any post of Normal Section, it

should be 50% marks in Graduation/Post Graduation with

B.Ed.

The School authority did not disclose the minimum

qualification of any of the subjects in the advertisement and

violated the mandate of Rule 6 of Annexure 1 of notification

no, 79-ES/S/10R-14/2013 dated 03/02/2016.

4) Moreover, in the recruitment procedure prepared by the

Founder Body as per Notification No-79-ES/S/10R-14/2013

dated 03/02/2016, the Founder Body directed the School

Managing Committee to follow that, the higher marks either

in Graduation or in Post Graduation shall be considered. This

is the law related to awarding of marks in academic

qualification for the post of Normal Section. The founder Body

directed the school managing committee that the minimum

qualification shall be 50% marks in Post Graduate level in the

Page 3 of 19

relevant subject with B.Ed for the post of Higher Secondary

Section.

The managing committee has therefore violated the

mandate of the Founder Body in both the cases meant for

qualification for Normal Section and Higher Secondary

Section.

5) It is pertinent to mention here that the School Authority

published advertisement in Bengali "Dainik Statesman" and

English edition of Statesman on 25/06/2022 for the post of

M.Sc (Botany) B.Ed along with two other teaching subjects

i.e. M.Sc (Chemistry) B.Ed and BA Pass ( History 300 marks)

B.Ed. But in no objection in respect of appointment of

Teaching and Non-Teaching staff from this office vide memo

no-745/M dated 25/03/2022, it is found that the post is

meant for Biological Science in H.S. Section. The school

authority has, therefore, violated the contents of No objection

memo, as they have asked only M.Sc (Botany) in place of

Biological Science.”

3. Bereft of any unnecessary facts, the background of the present writ

petition may be stated that, the petitioner No. 1/School being a

linguistic minority institution is protected under provisions of

Article 30 of the Constitution of India. The same is to be self-

regulated in terms of procedure as prescribed in Notification No.

79, in the matter of recruitment of teachers in the school.

4. Relevant in this case is the recruitment and appointment of the

three teachers namely Shri Arindam Das, Assistant Teacher of

History, Ms. Kabita Mukherjee, Assistant Teacher of Botany and

Shri Tanmay Halder, Assistant Teacher of Chemistry, all of whom

have been appointed vide the letter dated March 14, 2023.

According to the petitioner, a recruitment process was initiated

pursuant to the resolution of the Managing Committee dated July

29, 2021 and after having duly informed the vacancy position to

the DI vide letter dated July 25, 2021. The petitioners have stated

that, the DI has given ‘No Objection’ in his letter dated March 25,

2022. An advertisement was published thereafter in a well-

circulated vernacular newspaper inviting applications from the

eligible candidates. According to the petitioners, the selection

Page 4 of 19

process was held strictly in compliance with the provisions of

Notification No. 79 and the panel was prepared as per merits. The

said incumbents have been issued appointment letters as above as

per their places in merit list.

5. By letter dated April 11, 2023, the school authority has sent the

panel with other documents as required for approval of

appointment of the selected teachers, named above. However, after

repeated queries and satisfaction thereof by the school authorities,

finally, the respondent DI has issued the impugned order dated

September 15, 2023 citing its reasons as mentioned above, thereby

refusing to approve the panel.

6. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition

to pray for the relief that the DI be directed to forthwith grant

approval of appointment to the three Assistant Teachers as above;

that, the impugned order dated September 15, 2023 be set aside as

bad in law.

7. Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharyya has represented the writ petitioner.

He has submitted that the grounds as above, cited by the

respondent/DI to refuse grant of approval to the panel are not

maintainable in the eye of law. He has submitted further that,

neither there is any illegality in the vacancy notification published,

so far as due compliance with the notification No. 79 is concerned,

nor the criteria required for eligibility as mentioned therein stands

in contravention of the settled Rule in any manner whatsoever. In

this regard, Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioners

have categorically dealt with the provisions under Notification No.

79 as well as the West Bengal School Service Commission

(Selection for appointment to the posts of teachers for Class IX-X in

Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools) Rules, 2016 (vide

Notification No. 1105-SE/S/1S-26/2010 (Part III) dated September

20, 2016 – referred herein after as “No.1105). It has been

Page 5 of 19

mentioned that, Appendix of the Rules being only illustrative in

nature is not mandatory to be complied with similarly as it is in

case of the principal provisions provided under the said Rules. Mr.

Bhattacharyya has referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in

Ashish Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported

in 2018 3 SCC 55 in which the Court has held that, ‘any part of

the advertisement which is contrary to the statutory Rules has to

give way to the statutory prescription.’

8. A Rajasthan High Court judgment reported in 1998 SCC OnLine

Raj 176 (Diwakar Srimali and Others Vs. Life Insurance

Corporation of India and Others) has also been relied on by the

petitioners in support of their contentions that, ‘Appendix is not

part of the Rules. The Appendix is part of the instructions of 1987’.

9. With reference to Notification No. 1105, he has mentioned that the

essential educational as well as professional qualifications required

for the prospective candidates as has been mentioned in the

vacancy notification, is in pursuance with the said notification No.

1105, so far as teachers for Class IX-X are concerned. Similarly, for

the teachers for Class XI-XII, the prescribed educational and

professional qualifications as mentioned in the West Bengal School

Service Commission (Selection for appointment to the posts of

teachers for Classes XI and XII in Higher Secondary Schools

(Rules, 2016) (vide Notification No. 1106-SE/S/1S-26/2010 (Part

III dated September 20, 2016 – hereinafter referred to as „No-1106‟)

have been duly followed.

10. A decision of Division Bench of this Court dated December 11,

2024 in WP.ST 53 of 2024 (Mohan Kumar Halder versus The

State of West Bengal & Ors.) has also been referred to in which

the Court has held that, the real purpose of the notes appended to

the Rules is that when Rules are silent the notes will fill up the

gaps; that the notes are part of the Rules but they are for the

Page 6 of 19

guidance of the authorities; that they are not inconsistent with the

Rules but are intended to fill up gaps where the Rules are silent.

11. Accordingly, Mr. Bhattacharyya has submitted that the ground

taken by the respondent/DI that in the advertisement ‘phone

number’ of the institution has not been notified therein as per

„Annexure-I‟ of the Notification No. 79 and thereby there has been

violation of the Rules prescribed thereunder, cannot be sustained.

He mentions that, the main text of the Notification No. 79 has not

mentioned about the ‘phone number’ to be mandatorily provided

and „Annexure-I‟ appended to the said Rule is only for clarification

or instruction purpose. It has been further mentioned that any

shortfall in the vacancy notification regarding mention of the

minimum required qualification as alleged, is only misconceived in

so far as the required qualification in terms of the notifications No.

1105 and 1106 as mentioned above duly has found place in the

vacancy notification published by the petitioners.

12. So far as the ground of refusal of the prayer for approval of panel

regarding contradiction of the process undertaken by the School

Managing Committee with that recommended by the founder body

of the school has been strongly criticized on behalf of the

petitioners that, statutory prescription (in terms of notifications No.

1105, 1106 and 79) are paramount so far as conduct of

recruitment process by the said minority institution is concerned.

13. Lastly, the ‘Consolidated list of different subjects for XI-XII’

published by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission

has been relied upon to fortify the arguments made that, the

finding of the DI in the impugned order about violation of „No

Objection Memo‟ issued by the same, by the school authority in

declaring vacancy in the subject of Biological Sciences in higher

secondary section is erroneous and bad in law. With reference to

the said ‘Consolidated list’ it is submitted that, as per the same,

Page 7 of 19

„Biological Sciences‟ duly incorporate the subject „Botany‟, along

with other subjects specified therein. Therefore, the decision of the

respondent/DI that condition of „No Objection Memo‟ earlier issued

by it in favour of the petitioners has been infringed in the

advertisement published, is only erroneous and unsustainable. Mr.

Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted

that, as a matter of fact, as per Clause 10 of the Notification No.

79, the institution is not required to take any prior permission

from the respondent/DI to initiate a process of recruitment by

issuance of an advertisement. Hence, the no objection granted by

the said respondent vide letter dated March 25, 2022 becomes

absolutely inconsequential and can be considered for no reason

whatsoever.

14. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioners has sought

for setting aside of the impugned order dated September 15, 2023

that being unfounded, erroneous, arbitrary and illegal.

15. The respondent has amply relied on the reasons cited by the DI in

the said impugned order dated September 15, 2023, as mentioned

above. According to Mr. Dutta, learned AGP appearing for the

respondent/State there has been gross violation of the Rules

governing and regulating recruitment of teachers in a minority

institution, precisely that enumerated in Notification No. 79. Mr.

Dutta, learned AGP has mentioned about Rule 4 (1) of the

Notification No. 79 which has provided for the information be

published in the advertisement as contained in „Annexure-I‟ of the

said notification. He says that, this renders the „Annexure‟

appended to the said Rule as for compulsory compliance and not

only for explanation or instruction purpose, as mentioned on

behalf of the petitioners. Therefore, according to the respondent,

absence of mention phone number of the institution in the

advertisement, stands in stern violation of the Rules itself thereby

Page 8 of 19

rendering the vacancy notification as illegal. Rule 15 of the

Notification No. 79 has been mentioned to submit that the State

Government cannot take any financial responsibility for the

illegally appointed teachers.

16. The respondent has mentioned the judgment of the Supreme Court

in J. Jayalalithaa and Others Vs. State of Karnata and

Others reported in 2014 2 SCC 401 to buttress the argument on

the well-celebrated proposition of law that, where statute requires

a thing to be done in a certain manner, it has to be done in that

manner alone or not at all. Any deviation or adoption of other

methods of performance is forbidden under the law.

17. It is submitted that, due to breach of the Rules in publication of

notification and also due to absence of any mention of the subject

permitted by the DI in his „no objection‟ letter but instead

mentioning some other subject, stand in violation of the prescribed

Rules. That, a process undertaken as per the notification which is

in violation of the statutory Rules is to be rendered invalid and

illegal as a process of recruitment which has no sanctity in the eye

of law. In that event, appointment even if any given to the so-called

selected successful candidates, should stand annulled as per law.

Hence, according to the said respondent, there is no merit in the

instant writ petition and the same should be dismissed.

18. The school authority represented by Mr. Roy learned advocate has

largely supported the argument advanced by Mr. Bhattacharya, for

the petitioners. Mr. Roy says that the school authority has duly

complied with the statutory and legal formalities in conducting the

recruitment and that the impugned order of the DI is unfounded

and not maintainable in the eye of law.

19. Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India confers upon minorities,

whether based on religion or language, the fundamental right to

Page 9 of 19

establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

The object of this provision is to preserve the distinct language,

script and culture of minorities and to ensure that the State does

not interfere with their autonomy in the matter of administration of

such institutions. The scope and ambit of Article 30 has been

elaborately interpreted by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in several

decisions, notably in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of

Karnataka reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481 wherein it was held

that the right to administer an educational institution includes the

right to select and appoint teachers and other staff, subject to

reasonable regulations framed by the State in the interest of

maintaining educational standards. The Court clarified that while

the State may impose regulatory measures to ensure excellence in

education, such regulations must not abrogate or substantially

dilute the core right of administration guaranteed to minorities.

20. Similarly, in St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi

reported in (1992) 1 SCC 558 , the Hon‟ble Supreme Court

reiterated that minority institutions enjoy a degree of autonomy in

the management of their affairs, including the selection of staff.

However, such autonomy does not render the institution immune

from regulatory oversight designed to maintain fairness,

transparency, and academic standards.

21. In the present case, the petitioner No.1 institution is admittedly a

recognized minority educational institution. Consequently, it

enjoys the protection of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The

preparation of a panel for appointment to teaching posts forms an

integral part of the administrative functioning of the institution.

The right to select candidates through a duly constituted selection

process is therefore a component of the institution‟s right of

administration.

Page 10 of 19

22. Nevertheless, it is equally well settled that the State may prescribe

procedures relating to qualifications, selection processes and

approval of appointments to ensure that the quality of education is

not compromised. Such regulatory provisions do not infringe

Article 30 of the Constitution so long as they are reasonable and do

not interfere with the essential right of the minority institution to

choose members of its own workforce, both teaching and non -

teaching.

23. The requirement of approval of a panel by the competent authority

must therefore be examined in light of this Constitutional balance.

If the authority refuses approval on grounds that are purely

procedural or technical, without demonstrating any violation of

statutory norms or educational standards, such refusal would

amount to an unwarranted intrusion into the administrative

autonomy of the minority institution protected under Article 30 of

the Constitution of India. On the other hand, if the panel is found

to be prepared in violation of mandatory statutory provisions

relating to eligibility, transparency, or fairness in the selection

process, the competent authority would be justified in declining

approval, as regulatory oversight aimed at maintaining standards

is permissible under the constitutional framework.

24. Thus, while the State retains the power to regulate in the interest

of academic excellence and fairness, such regulation cannot be

exercised in a manner that effectively nullifies the minority

institution‟s right to administer its educational establishment. The

Constitutional guarantee under Article 30 must therefore be

harmonized with statutory regulations so that the core autonomy

of minority institutions remains preserved.

25. In the context of these principles of law now well settled, the

disputed issues in this case may be discussed. The State has

prescribed procedures relating to recruitment in a school with

Page 11 of 19

minority status, vide the Notification No.79. Let Paragraph 10

thereof be quoted as below: -

“10. Prior Permission- No prior permission shall require

for issuance of advertisement and starting the process

to fill up any vacant post duly sanctioned by the State

Government in the School Education Department or

Director of School Education, West Bengal provided the

terms and conditions as stated in para 2 above is

fulfilled.”

26. Paragraph 10 of the Notification No. 79 has set out regarding

requirement of prior permission of the State Government in the

event of recruitment process being taken up by the minority

institution. It says that, no prior permission shall be required for

issuance of advertisement and starting the process to fill up the

vacant post, which is duly sanctioned by the State Government, in

the school education department or Director of School Education

Department. The only rider is provided that the advertisement and

initiation of recruitment process should be in due fulfilment with

the terms and conditions as stated in Paragraph 2 of Notification

No. 79.

27. It becomes necessary to see what the Paragraph 2 of Notification

No. 79 has provided for. Let that be quoted below: -

“2. Qualifications- The appointed candidate shall fulfil

the minimum academic qualifications, professional

qualifications, age limit and citizenship as laid down in

the relevant Recruitment Rules (amended upto the date

of advertisement of the vacancy) framed under the

West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997.”

28. Hence, Paragraph 2 of Notification No. 79 can be seen to have

provided for the requirement of fulfilment of the minimum

academic qualifications, professional qualifications, age limit and

Page 12 of 19

citizenship by the appointed candidate as laid down in the writ

petition recruitment Rules framed under the West Bengal School

Service Commission Act, 1997.

29. The respondent/DI in the impugned order dated September 15,

2023 has mentioned amongst the grounds for rejection of the

prayer for approval of panel, that the condition of „No Objection

Memo‟ issued by the said office dated March 25, 2022 has been

violated by the school authority/petitioners while publishing the

advertisement for recruitment in the present case. In regard to

that, the petitioners have contended that, firstly, „no objection‟ has

not been a compulsorily required formality under the provisions of

Notification No. 79 for a recruitment process in the present

institution to be commenced. Hence , even if there was any

condition mentioned in the „no objection memo‟ and not complied

with by the school authority, the same is only inconsequential.

Secondly, the petitioners say that, no violation of any condition

mentioned in the letter of the DI dated March 25, 2022 has been

made by the same while publishing the vacancy notification.

30. The contentions in the said letter dated March 25, 2022 of the DI is

as follows:-

“With reference to the subject noted above, it is hereby informed

that there is no objection of the Office of the District Inspector of

Schools (S.E.), Kolkata if four (4) Assistant Teachers (1 A.T. in

History, 1 A.T. in Physical Education, Normal Section and 1 A.T. in

Chemistry & 1 A.T. in Biological Science in H.S. Section) and one

Group-D(Lab attendant) will be appointed by the School

Authority of Cathedral Mission High School, for smooth

functioning of the School.”

31. The DI has mentioned about recruitment process to be commenced

for induction of Assistant Teachers in History, Physical Education

in Normal Section; Chemistry and Biological Science s in H.S.

Page 13 of 19

Section. The vacancy notification published in the vernacular

newspaper dated June 25, 2022 namely, “Dainik Statesman”

mentions one vacancy position for an M.Sc. degree qualified person

in the subject „Botany‟ with B.Ed. training qualification and there

appears to be no mention of any subject namely “Biological

Sciences”.

32. The Court on consideration of the provisions enumerated in

Paragraph 10 and 2 respectively of the Notification No. 79 is of the

opinion that, prior permission of the DI is not what is contemplated

under the said Rules, for a minority institution like the present

petitioner No.1/school, to initiate a recruitment process to appoint

teachers as per its sanctioned vacancy, in so far as the appointed

persons fulfil the minimum eligibility criteria in terms of

qualification, age etcetera, prescribed in the recruitment Rules

under the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997. It is

pertinent to note in the said advertisement as mentioned above

that, the school declares the West Bengal School Service

Commission Rules to be followed in case of the recruitment.

33. It is further worth noting at this stage, the „Consolidated list‟ of

different subjects for Class XI-XII published by the West Bengal

Central School Service Commission (Page 80 of the writ petition).

The subject Biological Sciences has been prescribed to be

equivalent to several other subjects including „Botany‟. Since

"Botany" is the only subject taught in the school and not any other

subject in the entire group of Biological Sciences according to the

"Consolidated list," it is only appropriate that the advertisement

specify the subject and the minimal requirements for it, allowing

only suitably qualified candidates to apply. According to that

perspective, the reference of biological sciences in the DI letter

dated March 25, 2022, is in and of itself a vague and non-specific

order. Subject „Botany‟ is duly included in the group of „Biological

Page 14 of 19

Sciences‟- hence mention thereof in the advertisement duly stand

in compliance with the „Consolidated List‟, as mentioned above.

Hence, it cannot be said that, the advertisement infringes the West

Bengal School Service Commission Act o r Rules in any manner

whatsoever. Contrarily, the same has been duly published in

compliance with the Paragraphs 10 and 2 of the said notification

No. 79. In such view of the fact, the ground as above as

enumerated in the impugned order of refusal by the D I, stands

negated by this Court here.

34. Further, ground mentioned in the impugned order for refusing the

approval of panel by the DI and challenged by the petitioner is non-

compliance in the advertisement of the provisions as per

„Annexure-I‟ of the Notification No. 79. „Annexure-I‟ has provided

for certain information which are required to be given in open

advertisement for filling up vacant posts of teachers. „Clause 1‟

thereof has provided that, the advertisement should declare name

of the school with complete postal address along with pin code and

phone number. According to the DI in the said impugned order, the

school has failed to provide phone number in the advertisement.

Hence, the same is violating the statutory provision and thus de

hors the law.

35. The question therefore arises that do the „Annexure-1‟ to the

notification No. 79 carry the same legal force as the Rule itself and

to be considered part thereof and binding on compliance or are

those merely instructions and/or interpretative guidance having no

implication in case of any breach. „Annexure-1‟ of the notification

No. 79 starts with the words-

“Annexure – I

[See procedure 4(1)]

Following information shall be given in the open advertisement for filling up vacant

posts of Teaching (Including Headmaster/Headmistress)/Non-teaching

staff/Librarian.”

Page 15 of 19

36. The wordings thereof are clear and unambiguous that „Annexure-1‟

is in the nature of instructions as how the open advertisement for

filling up the vacant posts for teachers should be published.

Instructions like the above are generally to be followed for the

purpose of proper knowledge of the prospective incumbent about

the institution so that he or she can submit his application before

the same, in a flawless manner. It appears to be guidelines

specifically as regards the advertisement format. Therefore, to

vitiate the advertisement itself for the alleged partial deviation

therefrom, should require proof of prejudice, which has not either

been pleaded or proved in this case, by the respondent. In such

view of the fact the Rajasthan High Court judgment in Diwakar

Srimali’s case (supra) duly pursues this Court to hold that

„Annexture-1‟, not being a part of Rules vide notification No. 79,

and merely instructions and guidelines, partial omission thereof, if

any, would not jeopardise the advertisement itself, in absence of

any plea of prejudice. The Supreme Court in Ashish Kumar‟s case

(supra) has held that only statutory prescription should prevail and

any inconsistency in advertisement is to be turned down. As a

matter of fact, notification No.79 and the Rules thereunder have

not mentioned for providing „phone number‟ of the institution, in

the advertisement, excepting under „Annexure -1‟. Therefore,

question of violation of Rules can hardly arise, in case of omission

thereof, particularly in absence of anyone suffering prejudice due

to the same. „Annexture-1‟ can never override the Rules prescribed

in notification No.79 and in case of due compliance particularly

with Paragraph 2 of the said notification, the advertisement cannot

be faulted due to mere non-compliance of any one clause in the

said Annexure. Technical procedural deviations cannot invalidate

recruitment without prejudice. In case of an institution with

minority status the State may regulate qualifications and

standards, not all its procedures for internal administration.

Page 16 of 19

37. As to what should be the required qualification as per the Act of

1997 as mentioned above and required to be mentioned in the

advertisement published by the institution can be found out in

Notifications No. 1105 and 1106 for teachers in Class XI-XII, which

has provided the required minimum educational qualification

including professional qualification and age limit of the teachers as

above. Let that be quoted below: -

SCHEDULE I

Sl.

No.

Name of

posts

Educational qualification including

professional qualifications

Age-limit

1. Teachers

(Classes XI

and XII)

Essential: (a) Post Graduate with at least

50% marks (or its equivalent) from

recognised University and Bachelor of

Education (B. Ed) from National Council

for Teacher Education recognised

institution;

Or

(b) Post Graduate with at least 45%

marks (or its equivalent) from

recognised University and Bachelor of

Education (B. Ed) from National Council

for Teacher Education recognised

institution [in accordance with the

National Council for Teacher Education

(Form of application for recognition, the

time limit of submission of application,

determination of norms and standards for

recognition of teacher education

programmes and permission to start new

course or training) Regulations, 2002

notified on 13.11.2002 and National

Council for Teacher Education

(Recognition Norms and Procedure)

Regulations, 2007 notified on

10.12.2007];

Or

(c) Post Graduate with at least 50%

marks (or its equivalent) from

recognised University and B. A. Ed/B.

Sc. Ed. from any NCTE recognised

institution. Note.—The minimum

qualification as prescribed by the NCTE

Minimum 20 years and

maximum 40 years.

Upper age limit is,

however, relaxable by

5 years for Scheduled

Caste / Scheduled

Tribe candidates, 3

years for Other

Backward Classes

candidates and 8 years

for the Physically

Handicapped

Candidates.

Page 17 of 19

on or before the date of publication of

advertisement, shall also be considered.

SCHEDULE I

Sl.

No.

Name of posts

Educational qualifications

including professional

qualification

Age limit

1. Teachers (Classes IX

and X)

Essential:

(a) Graduate /Post Graduate from

recognized University with at

least 50% marks in either

Graduation or Post Graduation (or

its equivalent) and Bachelor of

Education (B.Ed.) from National

Council for Teacher Education

recognized institution;

Or

(b) Graduate /Post Graduate from

recognized University with at

least 45% marks in either

Graduation or Post Graduation (or

its equivalent) and Bachelor of

Education (B.Ed.) from National

Council for Teacher Education

recognized institution, [in

accordance with National Council

for Teacher Education (form of

Application for recognition, the

time limit of submission of

application, determination of

norms and standards for

recognition of teacher education

programmes and permission to

start new course or training)

Regulations, 2002 notified on

13/11/2002 and National Council

for Teacher Education

(Recognition norms and

Procedures) Regulations, 2007

notified on 10/12/2007];

Or

Minimum 20 years

and maximum 40

years. Upper age limit

is, however, relaxable

by 5 years for

Scheduled

Caste/Scheduled Tribe

candidates, 3 years for

Backward Class

candidates and 8 years

for the Physically

Handicapped

Candidates and upto

55 years of age for in

case of service school

teacher.

Page 18 of 19

(c) 4 years degree of B.A.Ed

/B.Sc.Ed. from any National

Council for Teacher Education

recognized institution.

Note.—The minimum

qualification as prescribed by the

NCTE on the date of publication

of advertisement shall also be

considered.

38. Thus, the prescribed minimum educational and professional

qualification and the age limit being as above, the advertisement

published which declares the West Bengal School Service

Commission Rules to be followed, cannot be said to be in violation

or contradiction of the Rules prescribed vide the said Notifications

Nos. 1105 and 1106 respective ly. Significantly, it should be

underlined that regarding qualifications or other eligibility

requirements, the State has no objections against the selected

individuals. Similarly, as regards the process of selection and its

transparency and fairness, no dispute has been raised by the

same.

39. The discussion as above has specifically prompted this Court to

find that in the case of recruitment and the process thereof, the

petitioners have taken appropriate steps in terms of the settled law

and procedure which might not have been called in question on the

grounds as specified in the said impugned order dated September

15, 2023 by the respondent/DI . There has not been any

fundamental breach of law in the process or statutory norms or

educational standards including the advertisement published

therefor and omission, if any at all, is only incidental having not

prejudiced interest of any person. In such circumstances, the DI

should have justifiably considered approval of the panel as above,

Page 19 of 19

there being no infringement of the prescribed recruitment

procedure in terms of the Rules. Therefore, the Court finds the

impugned order dated September 15, 2023 of the respondent/DI to

be not only erroneous but irrational, unjustified and arbitrary. The

same lacks the tenets on which it could have been sustained by

this Court and is found liable to be set aside for the reasons as

discussed above.

40. On all as above, the instant writ petition is allowed with the

following directions: -

i) Impugned order dated September 15, 2023 of the

respondent/DI is set aside as being erroneous, irrational

and arbitrary;

ii) Respondent No. 3/DI is directed to immediately accord

approval of panel as sent to it by the petitioner institution

under cover of letter dated April 11, 2023, positively

within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of

communication of copy of this judgment;

iii) The proforma respondents shall be provided with all

consequential benefits including arrear salary positively

within a period of three (03) months from the date of

communication of copy of this judgment and be restored

in employment if they are not engaged still now.

41. The writ petition No. WPA 6462 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of

along with applications pending in connection therewith if any.

42. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to

the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)