Para-Teacher gender reservation must be maintained school-wise to satisfy statutory pupil-teacher ratios and policy guidelines.

The appellant was appointed as a Para-Teacher at Dhoradaha Union High School on 31.10.2006 following a 2004 notification.

A private respondent (Respondent No. 6), who was not a party to the appellant's appointment, successfully moved the High Court in 2006 to have her representation for appointment considered.

Subsequently, the respondent authorities issued a memo on 11.07.2011 directing the engagement of the private respondent in place of the appellant.

The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, eventually issued a reasoned order on 06.04.2023, concluding that the appellant’s engagement was unjustified because the vacancy—arising from the resignation of a female teacher (Susmita Mondal)—was reserved for a female candidate to maintain the 50:50 gender ratio.

The appellant’s challenge to this order was dismissed by a Single Bench on 01.08.2025, leading to the present intra-court appeal.

1. Whether the 50% reservation for female Para-Teachers stipulated in the 2004 guidelines must be maintained school-wise or across the entire district vacancy.

2. Whether the appointment of a female candidate (private respondent) to replace a male candidate (appellant) in a vacancy created by a female teacher's resignation was legally sustainable.

Departmental Guideline dated 07.05.2004 regarding the engagement of Additional Para-Teachers at the upper primary level, specifically Clause A ("Principle of Allotment"), which mandates that engagement is based on the Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR) of individual schools.

Clause (vii) of the said guideline establishes that at least 50% of the teachers engaged must be women.

The principle of judicial review of administrative policy decisions, particularly those concerning recruitment criteria and gender-based reservations in education.

The Court rejected the appellant's contention that the 50% female reservation applied to the total district vacancies rather than individual schools.

By interpreting the Guideline dated 07.05.2004, the Court found that the "Principle of Allotment" is rooted in the specific enrollment numbers of each school (e.g., three teachers for 100 students, six for 200).

Consequently, the requirement to maintain a 50:50 gender ratio must also be applied school-wise to fulfill the policy’s objective.

The Court noted that the vacancy in question arose from the resignation of Smt. Susmita Mondal; therefore, the seat was a "female" vacancy.

The appellant, being male, had no legal right to occupy a post reserved for a female candidate under the mandatory 50% quota.

The Court found the Principal Secretary's reasoned order dated 06.04.2023 to be logically sound and consistent with the spirit of the recruitment guidelines.

Since the appellant (a male) was occupying a vacancy created by a female teacher's resignation, his appointment was contrary to the reservation policy.

The Court dismissed the appeal and the connected application, vacating all interim orders and upholding the Single Bench's decision to deny the writ of mandamus.