The recent ruling by the Calcutta High Court has affirmed the decision to revoke the appointment of 94 teachers due to their ineligibility and underqualification as determined in the 2014 Teachers Eligibility Test.

The bench, headed by Justice Amrita Sinha, previously issued directives to revoke the appointments of these teachers after reviewing a report from the West Bengal Board of Primary Education (WBPPE). The report highlighted that despite the 94 candidates' failure to pass the TET 2014, they were still granted appointment letters. The court noted that, despite being given chances to substantiate their educational qualifications, the candidates couldn't provide the necessary documentation.

Following the cancellation of their appointments, the candidates appealed to a division bench, which upheld the initial order but instructed the petitioners to seek modifications by approaching the single bench directly.

The appellants contended that based on the prior rulings of the single bench, the Primary School Council had retracted the appointment letters granted to the applicants, leading to the termination of their services.

The submission put forth highlighted that the appellants hadn't concealed any crucial facts during their application process. They asserted that they had diligently provided all necessary certificates and documents to validate their candidacy.

The counsel contended that the appellants' nearly six-year tenure in service had established a sense of permanency, indicating that their termination by the Council without proper disciplinary procedures was unwarranted.

Conversely, the petitioners argued that the fundamental eligibility criterion for a primary school teaching position was the TET qualification. As none of the candidates had met this requirement, they were deemed ineligible for appointment or for continued occupancy in the role of a primary school teacher.

The argument stated that conducting disciplinary proceedings was unnecessary as the initial appointment was deemed legally invalid. Therefore, the contention was that the individuals in question had never legitimately attained the status of being in service.

The observation highlighted that the candidates lacking a TET qualification were  ineligible to apply for the job in the first place. The court noted that given the online application process, the candidates couldn't have concealed their lack of TET qualification, as the application form wouldn't have been accepted without meeting this requirement.

The conclusion drawn was that, despite their six years of service, the candidates hadn't legitimately attained any service status due to the inherent nullity of their initial appointment. Consequently, the court established that no legal rights could be accrued in their favor based on this invalid appointment.

The court additionally asserted that permitting ineligible candidates to continue in service would undermine the fundamental purpose of conducting a public examination. It emphasized that such an allowance would compromise the integrity and purpose of the examination process.

The scarcity of public employment opportunities necessitated a strict adherence to merit-based selection, devoid of any room for favoritism or nepotism.

The Bench made a distinction between the present case and a previous matter where the Supreme Court had granted a stay. It noted that in the current situation, the candidates were terminated only after following the principles of natural justice. Subsequently, it was determined that these individuals lacked the necessary qualifications.

Case: Soumen Nandy v State of West Bengal & ors

Case No: WPA 9979/2022