WEST BENGAL CENTRAL SCHOOL SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS.V. ABDUL HALIM & ORS. versus ABDUL HALIM & ORS

Citation: [2019] 9 S.C.R. 1089 · Decided: 24-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1089
WEST BENGAL CENTRAL SCHOOL SERVICE COMMISSION
& ORS.
v.
ABDUL HALIM & ORS.
  (Civil Appeal No.5824 of 2019)
JULY 24, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons
for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2007 – r.5 – West
Bengal School Service Commission Act, 1997 – Clause (d) of Sub-
section (2) r/w. Sub-section (1) of s.17 – The West Bengal Central
School Service Commission invited applications for the posts of
Assistant Teacher – Pursuant thereto, respondent No.1 applied for
the post of Assistant Teacher of Arabic in a Bengali medium school
in the format prescribed – Respondent No.1 was declared successful
in the written test – After counselling, his recommendation/
empanelment and his selection was cancelled on the ground that he
opted for a Bengali medium school though he did not have Bengali
as a subject either at the Secondary or at the Higher Secondary or
at the graduation level – Writ petition – Single Judge of the High
Court held that respondent No. 1 had successfully completed the
certificate course in Bengali and Commission had wrongfully
cancelled his selection for the post of Assistant Teacher of Arabic
in the school – Aggrieved, appellants filed appeal before the Division
Bench of High Court, which was dismissed – On appeal, held: The
documents annexed by the respondent No.1 revealed that the course
was of elementary level – Also, respondent No.1 did not produce
any document or certificate certifying that his certificate course in
Bengali was of a standard equivalent to Bengali language at the
post Higher Secondary level – In this case, it is not in dispute that
the respondent No.1 who had been educated outside the State of
West Bengal, did not have Bengali as a subject at the Secondary,
Higher Secondary, graduation or post graduation level – The
interpretation of the  last Clause of Paragraph 2 of the
advertisement and/or r.5 (c) of the Rules, which reads “must have
succeeded in higher level of education in that language paper”  by
[2019]  9 S.C.R. 1089
1089
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1090
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
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.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court in exercise of its power to issue
writs, directions or orders to any person or authority to correct
quasi-judicial or even administrative decisions for enforcement
of a fundamental or legal right is obliged to prevent abuse of
power and neglect of duty by public authorities. [Para 29]
[1099-B]
2. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to
see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent
error of law.  The test  to determine whether a decision is vitiated
by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error
is self-evident on the face of the record or whether the error
requires examination or argument to establish it.  If an error has
to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there
may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error
on the face of the record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan
vs. Mallikarjuna reported in AIR 1960 SC 137.   If the provision
of a statutory rule is reasonably capable of two or more
constructions and one construction has been adopted, the decision
would not be open to interference by the writ Court.  It is only an
obvious misinterpretation of a relevant statutory provision, or
ignorance or disregard thereof, or a decision founded on reasons
which are clearly wrong in law, which can be corrected by the writ
Court by issuance of writ of Certiorari. [Para 30] [1099-C-E]
3. The sweep of power under Article 226 may be wide
enough to quash unreasonable orders.  If a decision is so arbitrary
and capricious that no reasonable person could have ever arrived
at it, the same is liable to be struck down by a writ Court.  If the
decision cannot rationally be supported by the materials on record,
the same may be regarded as perverse.  [Para 31] [1099-F]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1091
4. However, the power of the Court to examine the
reasonableness of an order 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.