West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2007 – r.5 – West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997 – Clause (d) of Subsection (2) r/w. Sub-section (1) of s.17 – The West Bengal Central School Service Commission invited applications for the posts of Assistant Teacher – Pursuant thereto, respondent No.1 applied for the post of Assistant Teacher of Arabic in a Bengali medium school in the format prescribed – Respondent No.1 was declared successful in the written test – After counselling, his recommendation/empanelment and his selection was cancelled on the ground that he opted for a Bengali medium school though he did not have Bengali as a subject either at the Secondary or at the Higher Secondary or at the graduation level – Writ petition – Single Judge of the High Court held that respondent No. 1 had successfully completed the certificate course in Bengali and Commission had wrongfully cancelled his selection for the post of Assistant Teacher of Arabic in the school – Aggrieved, appellants filed appeal before the Division Bench of High Court, which was dismissed – On appeal, held: The documents annexed by the respondent No.1 revealed that the course was of elementary level – Also, respondent No.1 did not produce any document or certificate certifying that his certificate course in Bengali was of a standard equivalent to Bengali language at the post Higher Secondary level – 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 r.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.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court in exercise of its power to issue writs, directions or orders to any person or authority to correct quasi-judicial or even administrative decisions for enforcement of a fundamental or legal right is obliged to prevent abuse of power and neglect of duty by public authorities. [Para 29] [1099-B]
2. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the face of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan vs. Mallikarjuna reported in AIR 1960 SC 137. If the provision of a statutory rule is reasonably capable of two or more constructions and one construction has been adopted, the decision would not be open to interference by the writ Court. It is only an obvious misinterpretation of a relevant statutory provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof, or a decision founded on reasons which are clearly wrong in law, which can be corrected by the writ Court by issuance of writ of Certiorari. [Para 30] [1099-C-E]
3. The sweep of power under Article 226 may be wide enough to quash unreasonable orders. If a decision is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have ever arrived at it, the same is liable to be struck down by a writ Court. If the decision cannot rationally be supported by the materials on record, the same may be regarded as perverse. [Para 31] [1099-F]
4. However, the power of the Court to examine the reasonableness of an order of the authorities does not enable the Court to look into the sufficiency of the grounds in support of a decision to examine the merits of the decision, sitting as if in appeal over the decision. The test is not what the Court considers reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the Court thinks that no reasonable person could have taken, which has led to manifest injustice. The writ Court does not interfere, because a decision is not perfect. [Para 32] [1099-G-H; 1100-A]
5. In entertaining and allowing the writ petition, the High Court has lost sight of the limits of its extraordinary power of judicial review and has in fact sat in appeal over the decision of the respondent No.2. [Para 33] [1100-B]
6. 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. [Para 34] [1100-C-D]
7. 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. As observed, 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. [Para 35] [1100-E]
8. 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. [Para 36] [1100-F]
Satyanarayan v. Mallikarjuna AIR 1960 SC 137 :
[1960] SCR 890 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.