Calcutta High Court Upholds Order Cancelling Appointment Of 94 Teachers Found Ineligible Under 2014 Eligibility Test

The Calcutta High Court has recently upheld its order cancelling the appointment letters of 94 teachers, who were found ineligible and underqualified under the Teachers Eligibility Test conducted in 2014.

A single bench of Justice Amrita Sinha had earlier passed orders for cancellation of the appointment of the aforesaid teachers upon perusing a report by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education (WBPPE) with a finding that the 94 candidates had not qualified in TET 2014 but were issued an appointment letter. The court observed that although the candidates were given opportunities to produce documents supporting their educational qualifications, they were unable to do so.

Upon cancellation of their appointments, the candidates approached a division bench in appeal, which did not interfere with the above order, but directed the petitioners to approach the single bench with a prayer for modification of the order.

In refusing any modification and upholding the earlier order canceling the appointment of the 94 teachers, the court held:

In the case at hand, the Court is not convinced that the applicants possess the requisite educational qualification for appointment as primary school teachers in terms of the recruitment notice and, as such, the Court declines to allow the applications filed by them seeking addition and modification/ variation of the subject order. Permitting ineligible candidates to remain in service on sympathetic ground will be absolute disservice to the nation and certainly impermissible in law.

It was argued by the appellants that in terms of the single bench's earlier orders, the Primary School Council had canceled the letter of appointment issued in favor of the applicants, and terminated their service.

It was submitted that there were no material facts that were suppressed by the appellants in their application process and that they had produced all certificates in support of their candidature.

Counsel argued that the appellants had been in service for almost six years and that they had acquired permanency of service, and the Council could not have terminated them without appropriate disciplinary proceedings.

It was submitted that similar proceedings before a coordinate bench had led to the termination of 269 candidates, but that the order therein had been stayed by the Apex Court, due to which the impugned order needed to be modified as well.

On the other hand, the petitioners submitted that the eligibility criteria for a primary school teacher was a TET qualification, and since none of the candidates had qualified for the TET, they would be ineligible for appointment, or subsequently hold on to the post of primary school teacher.

It was argued that there was no requirement for conducting disciplinary proceedings since their initial appointment itself was bad in law, and so they had never acquired the status of being in service.

Counsel for the WB Board of Primary Education argued that upon detection that the candidates did not possess the necessary qualifications, the board had recommended the termination of their service.

Upon hearing the parties, the Court perused the appointment notification for primary teachers which laid down that the TET must be qualified as a basic eligibility requirement.

The court noted that despite not being TET qualified, the candidates were issued letters of appointment, and the same was the subject of ongoing proceedings and investigation by central agencies.

It was found that even the division bench had declined to interfere with the single-bench order since the appellants had not disclosed their TET certificates, which had not been done on the present occasion as well.

On this ground alone the applications could have been rejected; but as detailed submissions have been advanced by the applicants seeking modification/variation of the order, accordingly, I propose to deal with the said submissions, the Court noted.

Appointment of ineligible candidates an incurable defect & void ab initio

In considering whether the appellants could have been terminated without a disciplinary hearing considering their six-year service, the Court noted that the basic premise of public appointment assumes a regular selection process and the appointment of eligible candidates.

However, it noted that in this case, the candidates who did not possess a TET qualification were ineligible to apply for the job in the first place. It was observed that since the application was done online, the candidates could not have hidden the fact that they were not TET qualified, as the application form would not have been accepted otherwise.

The court hence noted that the submission that the candidates had not suppressed material facts was incorrect. It held:

It appears that the applicants disclosed incorrect information in the application form for submitting the same online and thereafter somehow managed to procure the appointment letter despite being ineligible for appointment. Deliberate incorporation of wrong or incorrect data in the application form thereby misrepresenting facts and figures amounts to fraud. Permitting an ineligible candidate to hold on to the post and remain in service is contrary to the principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

It thus concluded that even though they had been in service for six years, the candidates had not acquired any status in service since their very appointment was a nullity, and hence no legal right could accrue in their favor.

Permitting ineligible candidates to continue on sympathetic grounds would be a disservice to the nation

The court further held that if ineligible candidates were allowed to remain in service, then the very purpose of a public examination being conducted would be frustrated.

It observed that sympathy cannot be shown in such situations, because at a stage when public employment is far and few between, there is no scope for favouritism or nepotism.

It was held that the recruitment process ought to be transparent in order for the participating candidates to assess their merit and compare themselves to other job seekers.

In such a situation there is no requirement of initiating any disciplinary proceeding by permitting the employee to remain in service. An ineligible candidate cannot be permitted to remain in service even for a single moment. The illegality once detected is liable to be rectified forthwith, it held.

In distinguishing the present case from the matter in which the Apex Court had granted a stay, the Bench observed that in the present case, the candidates had only been terminated after observing the principles of natural justice, and only then was sit found that they did not possess the requisite qualifications.

Accordingly, the prayer for modification/vacation/variation was turned down.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 344

Case: Soumen Nandy v State of West Bengal & ors

Case No: WPA 9979/2022

Click here to read/download order