Supreme Court clarifies eligibility for Bengali teachers: West Bengal Central School Service Commission vs. Abdul Halim (24 July 2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 24 July 2019
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 5824 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 30035 of 2016)
Judges: R. Banumathi, J., Indira Banerjee, J.

Can a candidate with a certificate course in Bengali from Delhi University be considered eligible to teach in a Bengali medium school in West Bengal? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a service law dispute, clarifying the requirements for language proficiency for teachers in the state. This case revolves around the interpretation of eligibility criteria for teachers in West Bengal, specifically concerning language requirements for teaching in Bengali medium schools. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench of Justices R. Banumathi and Indira Banerjee, with Justice Indira Banerjee authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The West Bengal Central School Service Commission (the Appellants) advertised for the post of Assistant Teacher, including positions for Arabic teachers in Bengali medium schools. Abdul Halim (Respondent No. 1) applied for the position of Assistant Teacher of Arabic in a Bengali medium school. He had completed a one-year certificate course in Bengali from the University of Delhi. The commission initially allowed him to appear for the written and personality tests, and he was subsequently empanelled. However, his recommendation was later cancelled on the grounds that he did not have Bengali as a subject at the Secondary, Higher Secondary, or graduation level, despite the certificate course. The Respondent filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging the cancellation of his recommendation.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Respondent No.1 filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging the cancellation of his recommendation. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition ex parte, observing that the Respondent No. 1 had successfully completed a certificate course in Bengali from Delhi University, which, in the view of the Single Judge, fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The Single Judge directed the Appellant to offer appointment to the Respondent No. 1 within a week. The Appellants then filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, which was also dismissed. The Division Bench held that since the rules did not specifically exclude a certificate course as a higher level of education, the Respondent No. 1 met the eligibility criteria under Rule 5(c) of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2007. The Appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997, and the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2007 (the “Rules”). Rule 5 of the Rules specifies the additional essential qualifications for candidates applying for teaching positions in schools with specific languages as the medium of instruction. Specifically, Rule 5 states:

“5. Additional essential qualification of candidate.- A candidate willing to be selected as a Teacher in any School or Madrasah, having Bengali or English or Hindi or Nepali or Oriya or Santhali or Telugu or Urdu as the medium of instruction, must have Bengali or English or Hindi or Nepali or Oriya or Santhali or Telugu or Urdu, as the case may be, as first or second or third language at any of the Secondary or Higher Secondary or Graduation level –
(a)at Secondary level or the Board or Board of Madrasah or equivalent; or
(b) at Higher Secondary level of the Council or equivalent; or
(c) at any subsequent higher level of education in that language paper.”

The advertisement No. 01/AT/08 also specified that candidates applying for schools with a particular language as the medium of instruction must have that language as first, second, or third language at the Secondary level or Higher Secondary Level or must have succeeded at any subsequent higher level of education in that language paper.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The Appellants argued that the Respondent No. 1 did not meet the eligibility criteria since he did not have Bengali as a subject at the Secondary, Higher Secondary, or graduation level.
• They contended that a one-year part-time certificate course in Bengali from the University of Delhi is not a course contemplated under Rule 5(c) of the 2007 Rules.
• The Appellants submitted that the certificate course was not equivalent to the level of Bengali taught at the Higher Secondary level in West Bengal.
• They argued that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 by sitting in appeal over the administrative decision of the commission.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The Respondent No. 1 argued that he was eligible for the post since he had successfully completed a certificate course in Bengali from the University of Delhi.
• He contended that the certificate course fulfilled the requirement of having succeeded at a “subsequent higher level of education in that language paper” as stipulated in the advertisement and Rule 5(c).
• The Respondent argued that the rules did not specifically exclude a certificate course as a higher level of education.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the Respondent No. 1 fulfilled the requirements of Paragraph 2 of the Advertisement and/or Rule 5(c) of the 2007 Rules.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Case Law:

• Satyanarayan vs. Mallikarjuna [AIR 1960 SC 137] – The Supreme Court referred to this case to explain the limits of the High Court’s power of judicial review. It held that the High Court cannot interfere with a decision if the error is not self-evident on the face of the record and requires a process of reasoning to establish it.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 17 of the West Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997 – This section empowers the government to make rules for the selection of teachers.
• Rule 5 of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2007 – This rule specifies the additional essential qualifications for candidates applying for teaching positions in schools with specific languages as the medium of instruction.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court relied on Satyanarayan vs. Mallikarjuna [AIR 1960 SC 137]* to emphasize that the High Court’s power of judicial review is limited and cannot be used to sit in appeal over administrative decisions.
• The court interpreted Rule 5 of the West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2007* to mean that a candidate must have a higher level of education in Bengali, which a basic certificate course does not satisfy.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of Rule 5(c) of the 2007 Rules and the factual determination of whether the certificate course in Bengali was equivalent to the standard of Bengali at the Higher Secondary level in West Bengal. The Court emphasized that the certificate course was a basic course for beginners and not a higher level of education in the language. The Court also considered the limits of the High Court’s power of judicial review and held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by sitting in appeal over the administrative decision of the commission.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The court reasoned that the interpretation of the last clause of Paragraph 2 of the advertisement and Rule 5(c) of the Rules by the authorities as requiring success in the language paper at the graduation level or post-graduation level or an examination equivalent to the level of the language as taught at the graduation level, and not any part-time course, was a plausible interpretation. The court also noted that universities generally do not allow students to opt for a language subject at the graduation level if the subject was not cleared at the Higher Secondary level. The court also observed that the certificate course was not meant for candidates who have studied Bengali earlier, indicating that the course was of an elementary level.

The court rejected the interpretation of the High Court that since the rules do not specifically state that a certificate course is not a course subsequent to a higher level of education, the Respondent was eligible. The court noted that it is not possible for statutory rules to specify which certificates from all over the country could not be considered as equivalent to the standard of Bengali taught at the undergraduate level.

The court also held that the High Court, in exercising its power of judicial review, lost sight of the limits of its extraordinary power and sat in appeal over the decision of the commission. The court reiterated that the High Court might only examine the decision-making process to ascertain whether there was an infirmity that vitiates the decision.

The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment:

• “A part time Certificate Course in a language, conducted by a University for graduates, is not necessarily of a level higher than the Higher Secondary level of the West Bengal Council of Higher Education or equivalent Board or for that matter, higher than the Secondary level of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education or an equivalent Board.”
• “It is preposterous to expect that statutory rules for appointment of teacher in the State of West Bengal, would not only have to prescribe the minimum qualifications, but also specify which of the certificates issued by Boards or Universities all over the country could not be considered as of standard equivalent to the standard of Bengali taught by a University at the under graduate level.”
• “The interpretation of the last Clause of Paragraph 2 of the advertisement and/or Rule 5 (c) of the Rules, which reads “must have succeeded in higher level of education in that language paper” by the authorities as success in the language paper at the graduation level or the post graduation level, or alternatively an examination in the language paper of a level which is equivalent to the level of the language as taught in the graduation level and not any part time course conducted by a University is a plausible if not possible interpretation which ought not to have been interfered with by the Writ Court.”

Key Takeaways

• A certificate course in a language, especially a basic or part-time course, may not be considered equivalent to the language proficiency required for teaching in schools with that language as the medium of instruction.
• The interpretation of eligibility criteria by the authorities should not be interfered with by the High Court unless there is a clear error on the face of the record.
• The High Court’s power of judicial review is limited and cannot be used to sit in appeal over administrative decisions.
• Candidates applying for teaching positions must meet the specific language requirements as prescribed in the rules and advertisements.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and allowed the appeal. No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court, except that the appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a certificate course in a language, especially a basic or part-time course, is not necessarily equivalent to the language proficiency required for teaching in schools with that language as the medium of instruction. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of eligibility criteria for teachers and emphasizes the limits of the High Court’s power of judicial review in administrative decisions. This case does not overrule any previous position of law but clarifies the interpretation of existing rules and principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the West Bengal Central School Service Commission, setting aside the judgment of the Calcutta High Court. The Court held that a certificate course in Bengali from Delhi University was not equivalent to the level of Bengali taught at the Higher Secondary level in West Bengal and therefore, did not meet the eligibility criteria for teaching in Bengali medium schools. The Court also emphasized the limits of the High Court’s power of judicial review in administrative decisions. This judgment clarifies the language proficiency requirements for teachers in West Bengal and sets a precedent for similar cases.