WPA/11969/2020 of BIDISHA MANDAL Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 31 December 2020

sl

11

31-12-2020

Court No. 6

ssi

WPA 11969 of 2020

Bidisha Mandal and another

-Vs-

State of West Bengal & ors.

(via video conference)

Mr. Sk. Sahjahan Ali

………. for the petitioners

Mr. Supripo ChattopadhyayMr. Suman Dey

…for the State

Mr. Subir Sanyal

Mr. Ratul Biswas

…..for the Board

This is an application praying for cancellationof the orders of rejection of the online applications ofthe petitioners filed as per the notification dated 23[rd]December, 2020 and/or in the alternative, forprovisionally allowing the petitioners to submit theOBC-A certificate offline before the Secretary, WestBengal Board of Primary Education being therespondent no. 4 for verification/scrutiny of thetestimonials for ascertainment of trainingqualification of TET 2014 qualified trainedcandidates beyond December 2020.

An affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits asfollows. Although the petitioners passed TETexamination in 2014 as general candidates,subsequently they were issued OBC-A certificates in2014 and 2016. Due to inadvertence, they could notintimate the Board about this. The petitioners maybe treated as reserved category candidates and itmay be seen whether they qualify for applying for thepost.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondent nos. 2 and 3 submits as follows.Although the petitioners’ claim that they hadobtained OBC certificates in 2014 and 2016, theydid not intimate this to the Board. In fact, they hadpassed the test as General Candidates in 2014. If theOBC certificates are to be taken into consideration,they had to be authenticated first. The petitionersmay make representations before the Board toconsider their OBC certificates. However, such stephas to be taken at the earliest, positively within 4[th]January, 2021.

I have heard the submissions of the learnedcounsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

It is claimed by the petitioners that althoughthey had qualified a TET examination as Generalcandidates, subsequently they are able to obtainOBC certificates. However, due to inadvertence, thesame could not be communicated to the Board.

In the interest of justice, the fact that they arein possession of OBC certificates ought to be takeninto consideration by the Board for furtherprocessing of their applications.

In view of the exigency and considering thesubmissions made on behalf of the respondent nos.2 and 3, the impugned rejections are set aside, thepetitioners shall be at liberty to makerepresentations before the Board within 4[th] January,2021 to consider their OBC-A certificates by placingself-attested copies of the same, producing theoriginals for verification by the concerned authorityand by filing affidavits affirmed before a Notary abouthaving been issued such certificates. In the eventsuch representations are made within the stipulatedtime, the Board shall consider them in accordancewith law.

It is clarified that this Court has not dealt withthe issue about whether, as reserved candidates, thepetitioners satisfy the eligibility criteria to apply forthe posts.

With these observations, the writ petition isdisposed of.

The parties shall act on the basis of copy of theorder downloaded from the official website of thisCourt.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)