2019 (9) TMI 826 - SC - Indian Laws

Appointment as an Assistant Teacher in Arabic In Jiaruddintola High School, District- Malda - Cancellation of recommendation/ empanelment and his selection to the School on the ground that he had opted for a Bengali medium school though he did not have Bengali as a subject either at the Secondary or the Higher Secondary or the graduation level - HELD THAT - In this case, it is not in dispute that the Respondent No.1 who had been educated outside the State of West Bengal, did not have Bengali as a subject at the Secondary, Higher Secondary, graduation or post graduation level. The interpretation of the last Clause of Paragraph 2 of the advertisement and/or Rule 5 (c) of the Rules, which reads must have succeeded in higher level of education in that language paper by the authorities as success in the language paper at the graduation level or the post graduation level, or alternatively an examination in the language paper of a level which is equivalent to the level of the language as taught in the graduation level and not any part time course conducted by a University is a plausible if not possible interpretation which ought not to have been interfered with by the Writ Court. This Court cannot but take judicial notice of the fact that universities do not usually allow students to opt for a language subject at the graduation level if the subject was not cleared at the Higher Secondary level - the documents annexed by the Respondent No.1 reveals that candidates who have studied the language at some level before the graduate level are debarred from admission to the Certificate Course, which makes it obvious that the course is of elementary level - Significantly, the Respondent No.1 has not produced any document or certificate of the Delhi University certifying that the certificate course in Bengali is of a standard equivalent to Bengali language at the post Higher Secondary level. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility criteria for the post of Assistant Teacher in Arabic.
2. Interpretation of Rule 5(c) of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2007.
3. Judicial review of administrative decisions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility Criteria for the Post of Assistant Teacher in Arabic:
The appeal challenges the cancellation of the Respondent No.1's candidature for the post of Assistant Teacher in Arabic in a Bengali medium school. The West Bengal Central School Service Commission had issued an advertisement specifying the eligibility criteria, including the requirement of having Bengali as a subject at the Secondary or Higher Secondary level or at any subsequent higher level of education. Respondent No.1, educated outside West Bengal, did not meet this criterion but had completed a one-year Certificate Course in Bengali from the University of Delhi.

2. Interpretation of Rule 5(c) of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2007:
The core issue revolves around whether the one-year Certificate Course in Bengali from the University of Delhi qualifies as a "higher level of education" under Rule 5(c) of the 2007 Rules. The Single Judge and the Division Bench had ruled in favor of Respondent No.1, interpreting the rule to include the Certificate Course. However, the Supreme Court found this interpretation erroneous, stating that the course did not necessarily equate to a higher level of education compared to the Higher Secondary level of the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education. The Court emphasized that the Certificate Course could be a basic course for beginners and not necessarily of a higher standard.

3. Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The Supreme Court highlighted the limits of judicial review under Article 226, stating that the High Court should not sit in appeal over administrative decisions. The Court's role is to examine the decision-making process for any infirmities that vitiate the decision. In this case, the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by re-evaluating the merits of the administrative decision rather than focusing on the process. The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court should only intervene if there is an apparent error of law or if the decision is arbitrary and capricious.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench, concluding that the Respondent No.1 did not meet the eligibility criteria as per Paragraph 2 of the advertisement and Rule 5(c) of the 2007 Rules. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgments were quashed.