SUVENDU HALDER AND ORS. vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE

RESERVED ON: 07.05.2026
DELIVERED ON: 19.05.2026

PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH

WPA 3759 OF 2023
CAN 1 OF 2024

SHUVENDU HALDAR & ORS.
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS


Appearance: -

Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta, Adv.
Mr. Arka Nandi, Adv.
Ms. Suryatapa Das, Adv.
………….. for the Petitioners
Md. Sarwar Jahan, Adv.
Sk. Nayemul Hoque, Adv.
Mr. Kaustav Roy, Adv. ……. For the DPSC/Respondent no. 6


JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J. :-

1 . The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus commanding the Respondent authorities to set aside, cancel,
rescind and/or withdraw the Order bearing No. 1191(5) dated 21.10.2022
passed by the Chairman, Murshidabad District Primary School Council, and
further directing reinstatement of the Petitioners to the post of Assistant
Teacher with continuity of service along with all consequential service
benefits including payment of arrears of salary.
2 . The facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition are briefly set out
hereinbelow.

2

3 The Respondent authorities published an advertisement dated 26.09.2016
.
inviting applications for the recruitment of Assistant Teachers in primary
schools under the State of West Bengal. In pursuance of the said
advertisement, the Petitioners applied for the said posts in Murshidabad
District under Respondent No. 5, the Murshidabad District Primary School
Council, in the category of untrained teachers. The Petitioners appeared in
the interviews conducted by the Respondent authorities and, upon
successful selection, were appointed as Primary Teachers under the
Murshidabad District Primary School Council.
4 . Upon receipt of their respective appointment letters issued by Respondent
No. 5, the Petitioners joined their respective schools and diligently
discharged the duties assigned to them. However, on 14.02.2017,
Respondent No. 6 issued a letter abruptly cancelling their appointments. The
ground assigned for such cancellation was that the Petitioners had been
appointed on the basis of their Special B.Ed. qualification; however, since
Special B.Ed. was not recognised as a valid training qualification under the
applicable rules at the relevant point of time, the Petitioners were held to be
bereft of the requisite training qualification, and consequently, their
appointments were cancelled.
5 Aggrieved by the aforesaid cancellation, the Petitioners preferred Writ
.
Petition No. WPA 13613 of 2017 before this Court. Vide Order dated
12.09.2022, this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition by granting liberty
to the Petitioners to approach Respondent No. 5 with a representation, and
further directed Respondent No. 6 to decide the said representation after
affording the Petitioners a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

3

6 In compliance with the said directions, the Petitioners submitted a
.
representation to Respondent No. 5 on 20.09.2022. Respondent No. 6, after
affording personal hearings to the Petitioners, passed an Order dated
21.10.2022, noting that the West Bengal Board of Primary Education is the
competent authority for preparing and approving the District-wise Panel for
recruitment of Primary School Teachers under all District Primary School
Councils in West Bengal. Accordingly, the representations of the Petitioners
were forwarded to the West Bengal Board of Primary Education for its
perusal and consideration in accordance with the applicable rules.
7 . Being aggrieved by the said Order dated 21.10.2022, the Petitioners have
preferred the present Writ Petition.
Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioners
8 . Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners never
applied as trained candidates in the selection process. It was the Respondent
authorities who, of their own accord, treated the Petitioners' Special B.Ed.
qualification as a sufficient training qualification and appointed them after
following the prescribed process of selection. There was no suppression of
facts or misrepresentation whatsoever on the part of the Petitioners in
procuring their appointments.
9 . It is further submitted that even if the marks awarded in respect of the
training qualification are entirely excluded from the aggregate score of the
Petitioners, they would still secure marks well in excess of the cut-off marks
of the last selected candidate in the untrained category within their
respective reservation categories under the Murshidabad District Primary
School Council. The following comparative position has been placed on

4

record: Petitioner No. 1, a General Category candidate, secured 17.100
marks after deducting the marks for Special B.Ed., against a General
Category cut-off of 16.134 marks. Petitioner No. 2, an OBC-A Category
candidate, secured 17.520 marks after the said deduction. Petitioner No. 3, a
Scheduled Caste candidate, secured 17.092 marks after the said deduction,
against an SC Category cut-off of 15.925 marks.
10 . Learned Counsel places reliance upon the Judgments of the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in Ananda Banik v. State of West Bengal, WPA 6290
of 2017 (decided on 30.06.2022) , and Arpita Biswas v. State of West
Bengal, WPA 31101 of 2017 (decided on 20.05.2022) , to contend that
where a candidate secures more marks than the cut-off in their respective
category even after deducting the marks allotted for Special B.Ed., they are
entitled to appointment.
11 . Learned Counsel further places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Sandeep
Choudhary, reported as (2022) 11 SCC 779 , to contend that a candidate
belonging to the OBC category who qualifies against the General Category
cut-off is entitled to be considered for appointment against a General
Category vacancy.
12 On the aforesaid submissions, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners prays
.
that the present Writ Petition be allowed.
Submissions on Behalf of Respondents No. 2, 3 & 4
13 . An Affidavit in Opposition was filed on behalf of Respondents No. 2, 3 and 4
in August 2024, wherein it is stated that a Coordinate Bench of this Court,
vide Judgment dated 12.05.2023, cancelled all the appointments of

5

untrained candidates made pursuant to the recruitment process of 2016. An
Appeal against the said Judgment is stated to be pending consideration
before the Division Bench, and on that ground, it is submitted that the
present Writ Petition ought not to be taken up for hearing pending disposal
of the said Appeal.
14 . On the merits, the said Respondents deny that the Petitioners had applied
under the untrained category and that the Respondent authorities
erroneously considered them as trained teachers. It is their case that the
Petitioners had obtained a Bachelor of Education in Special B.Ed. prior to
the date of interview and produced the said certificates at the time of
interview, apparently with a view to being considered as trained teachers,
since trained teachers were accorded priority in the appointment process.
The appointments were made on a temporary basis, subject to verification.
Upon scrutiny, it was found that the Petitioners did not possess the training
qualification prescribed under the Primary Teachers' Recruitment Rules,
2016, and their appointments were accordingly cancelled. The Respondents
further contend that since the Petitioners were appointed as trained teachers
and their qualification was found to be deficient, they cannot, after
exhaustion of the panel, claim appointment as untrained teachers on the
ground that their scores exceed the cut-off of the last selected candidate in
their respective categories after excluding the marks for Special B.Ed. It is
additionally stated that all vacancies under the 2016 recruitment process
have been filled and that no vacancies remain. In particular, Petitioner No.
2's OBC-A category was filled entirely by trained teachers. Accordingly,
Respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 pray for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

6

Submissions on Behalf of Respondent No. 6
15 . Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 6 contends that Respondent No. 5
issued the appointment letters on the basis of the list prepared by
Respondents No. 2 and 3 following the interviews conducted by them. As per
the said list, the Petitioners were considered against the post of trained
teacher. Since they were appointed as trained teachers and their
qualification was subsequently found to be insufficient, their appointments
were rightly cancelled.
16 However, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 6 fairly acknowledges the
.
following factual position: Petitioner No. 1 obtained 17.100 marks after
deducting the marks for Special B.Ed., against a General Category cut-off of
16.134 marks. Petitioner No. 2, who is an OBC-A category candidate
obtained 17.520 marks after the said deduction. It is, however, submitted
that since the OBC-A category vacancies have been filled entirely by trained
teachers, no untrained teacher can be considered against that category.
Petitioner No. 3 obtained 17.092 marks after the said deduction, against an
SC Category cut-off of 15.925 marks.
17 . Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 6 further draws the attention of this
Court to the impugned Order dated 21.10.2022, passed in compliance with
the directions of this Court in WPA 13613 of 2017. It is submitted that the
representations of the Petitioners were not rejected but were forwarded to
Respondent No. 2, Board for perusal and consideration. Since Respondent
No. 5 acts under the directions of Respondent No. 2, it is submitted that
appropriate directions may be issued to Respondent No. 2.

7

Legal Analysis and Findings
18 . This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced by Learned
Counsel for all parties and has examined the documents as well as the
judicial precedents placed on record.
19 At the outset, it is necessary to address the preliminary objection raised by
.
Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 regarding the pendency of an Appeal before the
Division Bench against the Judgment dated 12.05.2023, whereby a
Coordinate Bench had set aside approximately 35,000 appointments of
untrained teachers made pursuant to the 2016 recruitment process. This
Court notes that the Hon'ble Division Bench, vide Order dated 03.12.2025 in
MAT 873 of 2023, has set aside the said Judgment dated 12.05.2023. In
view thereof, there exists no legal impediment in adjudicating the present
matter on merits, and the preliminary objection accordingly stands
overruled.
20 . Turning to the merits, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has placed on
record the original application forms submitted by the Petitioners at the time
of applying. A careful perusal of these documents unequivocally establishes
that the Petitioners had applied in the category of untrained teachers.
Notwithstanding such clear position, Respondent No. 2, the Board,
erroneously considered the Petitioners against the category of trained
teachers on the basis of their Special B.Ed. certificates, which was not a
recognised training qualification under the Primary Teachers' Recruitment
Rules, 2016. It is further noteworthy that the appointment letters issued to
the Petitioners do not specify the category under which they were appointed.
In these circumstances, the erroneous classification of the Petitioners as

8

trained teachers was an error entirely attributable to Respondent No. 2. The
Petitioners had applied as untrained teachers and never sought to be treated
as trained teachers. It is a well settled principle of law that no party can be
permitted to take advantage of its own wrong, and it would be manifestly
unjust to allow the Respondents to rely upon their own administrative error
to defeat the legitimate claims of the Petitioners.
21 . On the factual matrix discussed above, all three Petitioners have obtained
marks in excess of the cut off marks in their respective reservation
categories, even after the complete exclusion of the marks attributed to the
Special B.Ed qualification. The position of Petitioner No. 2 requires specific
consideration. The Respondents have contended that the OBC-A category
vacancies were entirely filled by trained teachers and no untrained teacher
can be appointed against that category. However, Petitioner No. 2 secured
17.520 marks after exclusion of the Special B.Ed. marks, which exceeds the
General Category cut-off marks of 16.134. In view of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Sandeep
Choudhary (supra) , Petitioner No. 2 is entitled to be considered against a
General Category vacancy.
22 . The contention of the Respondents that the panel has been exhausted and
no vacancies are available does not merit acceptance in the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the present case. The Petitioners had applied,
unambiguously, as untrained teachers and never claimed any benefit on
account of their Special B.Ed. qualification. It was entirely incumbent upon
Respondent No. 2 to correctly assess the applications and to consider the
Petitioners under the untrained category. The failure to do so constitutes a
clear administrative error. The Petitioners cannot be made to suffer the

9

consequences of an error for which they bear no responsibility. It is also
significant that Respondent No. 6, being fully conscious of this error, vide
the impugned Order dated 21.10.2022, specifically forwarded the Petitioners'
representations to Respondent No. 2 for reconsideration on the correct
factual basis. Despite the passage of considerable time, no action has been
taken by Respondent No. 2, which reflects an unacceptable abdication of
administrative responsibility.
23 . The stand of Respondent No. 2 that the recruitment panel stands exhausted
and that no vacancy is available for consideration cannot, in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the present case, operate as an absolute bar to
the grant of relief. It is a well settled proposition of law that an authority
cannot be permitted to defeat a legitimate claim by taking refuge in a
situation brought about entirely by its own administrative default. The
exhaustion of the panel in the present case is a direct and proximate
consequence of the error committed by Respondent No. 2 in misclassifying
the Petitioners as trained teachers, an error for which the Petitioners bear no
responsibility whatsoever. Had Respondent No. 2 correctly assessed the
applications and considered the Petitioners under the untrained category at
the threshold, as it was obligated to do, their names would have found due
place in the untrained panel and their appointments would have been
sustained. The Respondents cannot be permitted to immunise themselves
from the consequences of their own wrong by pointing to the very outcome
that such wrong itself produced. It is also relevant to note that Respondent
No. 6, having recognised the error, forwarded the matter to Respondent No. 2
vide Order dated 21.10.2022 with a specific request to reconsider the
Petitioners' cases, an opportunity which Respondent No. 2 consciously chose

10

not to utilise for a period of over two years. In these circumstances, to deny
reinstatement on the ground of panel exhaustion would be to reward
administrative negligence and punish those who were its victims. This Court,
while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, is not only empowered but duty bound to mould the relief in a manner
so as to prevent manifest injustice from being perpetuated. The directions
issued herein are accordingly to be understood as restoring the Petitioners to
the position which they would have occupied but for the error committed by
Respondent No. 2. If no substantive vacancy is presently available,
Respondent No. 2 shall create supernumerary posts for the purpose of giving
effect to this order, which shall thereafter be regularised against the next
available substantive vacancy.
24 . In view of the foregoing, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the fault
lies entirely and exclusively with Respondent No. 2. The Petitioners are
wholly blameless and cannot be made to suffer the adverse consequences of
the Respondents' administrative error.
25 The findings of this Court are firmly supported by the decisions of the
.
Coordinate Bench in Arpita Biswas v. State of West Bengal (supra) and
Ananda Banik v. State of West Bengal (supra) , which arose on materially
identical facts and directed reinstatement of the concerned Petitioners with
all service benefits. Neither of those judgments was challenged in appeal,
and both have attained finality.
26 . In view of the detailed analysis set out hereinabove, the present Writ Petition
is allowed and the Respondent No. 2 is hereby directed to issue appropriate
directions to Respondent No. 5 for reinstatement of all three Petitioners to

11

the post of Assistant Teacher in the untrained category with immediate effect
with all consequential service benefits. This direction shall be complied with
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of
this Judgment.
27 . The Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. All pending application, if
any, stand disposed of.


(GAURANG KANTH, J.)
SAKIL AMED (P.A)