The Calcutta High Court recently upheld its earlier order of cancelling the appointment of 94 teachers
who were found ineligible and underqualified in the 2014 Teachers Eligibility Test. A single bench of
Justice Amrita Sinha upon perusing a report by the West Bengal Board of Primary Education (WBPPE)
with a finding that the 94 candidates had not qualified in TET 2014 but were issued an appointment
letter had earlier passed orders cancelling the appointment of the same teachers. The observation of
the court was that despite opportunities, the candidates had failed to produce the necessary
documents.
The candidates approached a division bench in appeal after the cancellation of their appointment
letters. The division bench without interfering with the order directed the petitioners to approach the
single bench with a prayer for modification of the order.

OBSERVATION OF THE HIGH COURT

However, in refusing any modification of the earlier-passed order and upholding the same as before, the
court observed:
“In the case at hand, the Court is not convinced that the applicants possess the requisite educational
qualification for appointment as primary school teachers in terms of the recruitment notice and as such,
the Court declines to allow the applications filed by them seeking addition and modification/variation of
the subject order. Permitting ineligible candidates to remain in service on sympathetic ground will be
absolute disservice to the nation and certainly impermissible in law.”

ARGUMENT OF APPELLANTS AND COUNSEL

The appellants (persons who apply to a higher court for a reversal of the decision of a lower court)
argued that following the single bench’s earlier orders, the Primary School Council had cancelled the
letter of appointment that had been earlier issue to them and terminated their service. It was submitted
that they had neither suppressed any facts nor concealed their educational qualifications in the
selection process.
Counsel argued that the appellants had been in service for almost six years and that they had acquired
permanency of service, and the Council could not have terminated them without any disciplinary
proceedings.
The petitioners argued that there was no requirement for disciplinary action since the initial
appointment of the 94 teachers itself was bad in law and so, in effect, they never acquired the status of
being in service. The Counsel argued that upon detection that the candidates did not possess the
requisite qualifications, the Board had recommended their termination. For appointment of primary
teachers, TET qualification is a basic eligibility requirement.